1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW PETITION NO.75/2009 IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.14/2009 Vilas Namdev Pangarkar Petitioner. V E R S U S Jaywant Haruji Gunjal and others Respondents. Shri A.Z. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 6 Shri Pallod Advocate for respondent No.7. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Applicant in this application seeks review of the order passed by this Court in A.O. No.14/2009 with C.A. No.1295/2009 on March 17, 2009. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel points out ground No.5 in this review application seeking review of the order. In this ground No.5 it has been averred that this Court has not considered the 7/12 extract, city Survey Record, Nagar Palika record in respect of possession. Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India In the matter of B.C.C.I V.s Netaji Cricket Club and others reported in 2005 S.C. 741 is relied upon. According to Mr. Gandhi question of fact and law is open in review 2 application. He also points out copy of the sale deed which is placed on record along with this application. Copy of the sale deed starts from page 28. He points out paragraph No.5 of the sale deed i.e in respect of the possession of the subject matter of the document. In this paragraph No.5, it has been mentioned that possession of the subject matter of the sale deed was handed over to the purchaser in presence of the witnesses. It is not in dispute that suit is pending in the trial court. Order passed by the trial court below Exh.5 was subject matter of A.O. before this Court. This A.O was considered by this Court at length. In the order there is no specific reference to this sale deed. However, from the order it is clear that order passed by the trial court while considering the application below Exh.5 was considered. Claim of the present petitioner in relation to possession of the property based on the material was considered by this Court. Jurisdiction of this court in a review is to be considered in relation to Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is appropriate at this stage to refer judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others reported in 1979 S.C. Page 1047. There Honourable Supreme Court has held that ‘review jurisdiction is neither appellate nor revisional.’ Considering the submission made by the learned counsel, in the case on hand in my view there is no case for review in the earlier order passed by this Court. Suit is pending in the trial court which is of the year 2008. The Trial court shall decide the suit 3 in accordance with the merit and after hearing the parties. Observations made by this Court while deciding A.O. and observations made by the trial Court while deciding application Exh.5 are confined to application Exh.5 i.e. grant or refusal of temporary injunction. 3. Civil application for review stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Trial Court shall decide the suit on or before 31.12.2010. The counsel appearing for the parties under takes to co-operate such expeditious hearing. ( S.B.DESHMUKH ) JUDGE aaa/75.09