1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 223 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL 128 OF 2006 Eknath Balkrishna Ingole Vs. Ashok Ramkrushna Chaudhari & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri Chawaji Adv for applicant. Shri V. P. Panpaliya Adv for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 17 th DECEMBER, 2009. Heard counsel for the applicant and the respondents. This application has been filed for review of the judgment delivered by this Court on 01.02.2008 whereby Second Appeal came to be dismissed in limine. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. The trial Court had decreed the suit. Appellate Court found that the shares were not properly carved out by the trial Court and therefore 2 the appellate Court redetermined the shares of the parties. After having gone through the judgment of the first appellate Court this Court found that shares have been properly determined by the first appellate Court. It has been held by the Court that the suit property is joint family property. In view of this Court found that there was no need to admit the appeal and it was dismissed in limine. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended before me that by virtue of Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act the order as passed by this Court as well as by First Appellate Court was not correct and therefore it needed a review. The submission is not correct. The case was governed by old Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act and I find that shares have been correctly drawn by the First Appellate Court. It was urged before me that, it was not seriously challenged that the suit property is self acquired property of appellant was not correct. He submits that it was so challenged. I do not find that the submission can be accepted. The learned Judge of the appellate Court has observed so and there is no reason to doubt the same. In any case such point was not at all raised while the appeal came up for admission. No mistake apparent on 3 the face of record is shown. Even if the judgment rendered by that Court is wrong remedy is else where and not by way of review. Application is dismissed. JUDGE svk 4 5 6