1 Rev.Appl.233/11 in W.P.No.7281/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW APPLICATION NO.233 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7281 OF 2011. Najmunbee W/o Miyan Patel (died) through L.Rs. Arefa W/o Gafur Shaikh and others ... Applicants. Versus Samiulla S/o Abdul Razak Patel and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the applicant. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2 Rev.Appl.233/11 in W.P.No.7281/11 2. This is an application for review of the order dated 23.9.2011, passed in W.P.No. 7281/2011. 3. Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order is passed by the District Court in Misc. Civil Appeal as against a dead person. The Respondent No.7 was dead. His L.Rs. were not brought on record and for the first time, injunction has been clamped by the lower appellate Court in the said Misc. Civil Application. The same is against a dead person and as such the same has resulted in conflicting orders, in view of that fact, as against Respondent No.6 the order passed by the trial court stands confirmed and in respect of other defendants, it is set aside. The same can not be permitted. The whole appeal would stand abated. According to the learned counsel, this is an error apparent on the face of record. Even the stand taken is required to be considered. The 7/12 extract also does not show possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and it is only to the extent of 7 acres and 12 gunthas. The 3 Rev.Appl.233/11 in W.P.No.7281/11 plaintiff can not claim more than that. 4. The scope of Review U/s 114 read with Order 47 of the C.P.C. is in a narrow compass. The same is not akin to the appellate jurisdiction. 5. This point that the Respondent No.7 was dead and his L.Rs. were not brought on record was not taken up by the petitioners while arguing the Writ Petition. However, even if the arguments of Mr.Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard are considered, still, the same would not vitiate the judgment of the appellate Court qua the other Respondents. The relief of injunction is a relief in persona. It binds the party against whom it is issued. The L.Rs. of Respondent No.7 have not come forward disputing the order. Assuming that the order would not bind the Respondent No.7 and his L.Rs., still that would not be a ground to set aside the order so far as other Respondents are concerned. The order of injunction is passed against those persons who are trying to interfere in possession 4 Rev.Appl.233/11 in W.P.No.7281/11 and it is referable to an individual. 6. While dismissing the Writ Petition, the affidavits of adjoining land owners have been considered and it is observed that the lower appellate Court has taken a plausible view. 7. In light of the above, the Review Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. The trial Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/Rev233.11 5 Rev.Appl.233/11 in W.P.No.7281/11