1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR M.C.A. NO. 39/2010 IN Second Appeal NO. 433/2009 (D) (Shantabai Narayanrao Ramelwar & others VERSUS Smt.Gopikabai Borewar (DEAD) Ghanshyam Sakkaramji Borewar) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.K. Paliwal, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.S. Doifode, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 1, 2010 . Heard. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the judgment and order passed by this Court on 24.11.2009 is liable to be set aside in as this Court had not considered the submission of the applicant that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) did not have jurisdiction to decide the suit between the licensor and a licensee and the Small Causes Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the same. In fact, on hearing the parties and on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the judgments passed by both the Courts, it is clear that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) had jurisdiction to decide the suit as the applicant/original defendant, had raised a plea in the written statement that they had acquired ownership over the suit property by adverse possession. This issue was 2 framed by the trial Court and this issue could not have been tried by the Small Causes Court. The review application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. JUDGE APTE