1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 693 OF 2007 1. Dilip Digambar Deshpande 2. Anand Digambar Deshpande 3. Sou. Nirmala Rajgopal Rao .. Applicants V/s Prakash Mahadev Korde .. Respondent Mr. G.S. Godbole for the applicants. Mr. M.S. Lagu for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 30TH JUNE 2010 ORAL ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the parties state that this matter was tagged with Writ Petition No.2767 of 2008 as per the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Writ Petition No.2767 of 2008 was heard and decided by me on 28th June 2010, but on request of the parties who wanted to cite certain authorities, hearing of this revision application was adjourned to today. I have heard learned counsel for the parties today. 2. By this revision application, the applicants challenge the order dated 10th November 2006 passed by the learned 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune thereby allowing the application 2 of the respondent herein to be brought on record as a legal representative of the original plaintiff in the suit. 3. After filing of the suit being Special Civil Suit No.164 of 1997, the original plaintiff died on 3 June 1998. The respondent who is her son made an application to the Court on 27 February 2000 for setting aside the abatement of the suit and bringing him on record in place of the original plaintiff. The application, which was opposed by the applicants, has been allowed by the Trial Court. That order is impugned in this revision application. 4. Before the Trial Court, the respondent pleaded that he was not aware of the suit filed by his mother. It was only on 1 February 2000 when he received a letter from the advocate of the plaintiff that he came to know of the suit filed by his mother and thereafter he immediately took steps for bringing him on record. The delay caused was unintentional and had arisen on account of the fact that he did not know of the pendency of the suit. This explanation was accepted by the Trial Court and the delay in setting aside the abatement was condoned, abatement was set aside and the respondent was allowed to be brought on record. 3 6. Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the original plaintiff being an illiterate had not put her signature but had put her thumb impression on the plaint and below the verification. Her thumb impression below the verification was attested by the present respondent and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the present suit. Consequently, the Trial Court ought not to have condoned the delay in making the application for setting aside the abatement. 7. In Smt. Chandrakantaben v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi, (1989) 2 SCC 630, the Supreme Court has observed in para 15 of its decision that there is no presumption that an attesting witness of a document must be assumed to be aware of its contents. In Seth Beni Chand v. Kamla Kunwar, (1976) 4 SCC 554, the Supreme Court has held that attestation means signing of a document to signify that the attestator was a witness to the execution of the document. Attesting witness is one who signs the document in presence of the executant after seeing the execution of the document or after receiving the personal acknowledgment from the executant as regards execution of the document. In M.L.A. Jabbar 4 Sahib v. M.V.V. Sastri & Sons, (1969) 1 SCC 573, after referring to the provisions of section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court held that to attest is to bear witness to a fact of signing. In my view, merely because the respondent had attested the thumb impression of the deceased plaintiff does not mean that he was aware of the contents of the document nor can it be assumed that he was aware that the thumb impression was made by the original plaintiff on a document which was a plaint in the suit. 8. There is one more hurdle in the way of the applicants. This revision application has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”). Under section 115 of the Code, the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any subordinate court, and if such subordinate court appears (i) to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (ii) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (iii) to have acted in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court conferred by section 115 of the Code is limited and can be exercised only in case of the three cases mentioned above. The present case does not fall under any of the three eventualities 5 mentioned in section 115 of the Code. Admittedly, the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction to entertain an application for setting aside an abatement and an application for condonation of delay. The learned Civil Judge has, therefore, exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. No illegality or material irregularity in exercise of the jurisdiction has been pointed out. Merely because another view is possible, that does not mean that the jurisdiction has been exercised illegally or with material irregularity. The impugned order cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code. 9. For these reasons, the revision application is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)