1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2004 (Smt. Sonadevi Matasaran Bhujwa vs. Smt. Jaidevi Raghunathdas Udasi & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant. The challenge is to the order dated 14.2.2003 on the ground that leave to appeal has not been given to the present applicant. The applicant claims that she is second wife of original tenant Matasaran Bhujwa and after his death his first wife and her issues were brought on record while the second wife and her issues were not brought on record. It is contended that she is in possession and, therefore, she ought to have been brought on record. The application for leave to appeal came to be rejected after recording a finding that Matasaran had allegedly inducted one Harishankar Jaiswal as sub-tenant and Harishankar Jaiswal had also moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code in Civil Suit contending that he 2 became the tenant of landlord. That application was rejected. Harikishankar Jaiswal then filed a Civil Suit No.622 of 1994 and the impugned order mentions that it was pending at that time. It is also recorded that all legal heirs were not required to be brought on record and legal heir in possession were brought on record. The learned Additional District Judge has also found that the present applicant was not continuing the litigation on same cause of action. These findings are not shown to be erroneous or perverse. It is to be noted that earlier against very same order, Civil Revision Application No.131 of 2003 was filed by Parwatibai Matasaran Bhujwa as revision applicant. That revision was filed by a constituted Attorney and it was withdrawn with liberty, after noticing that Parwatibai was already dead. The present Revision Applicant has also filed revision through constituted Attorney Sherkhan s/o Haji Moujdar Khan. The circumstances, therefore, show that no interference is warranted and also there is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Civil Revision Application is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.