1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPEALLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No. 8028 of 2007 in Review Application St No. 8512 of 2007 in Second Appeal No. 699 of 2006 Bapu s/o Mhalu Mate ... Applicant V E R S U S Muktabai w/o Nivrutti Mate ... Respondent ... Mr. V.S. Bedre, counsel for the applicant ... CORAM: V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE: 4th December, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. There is delay of 31 days in filing of the review application. The explanation given in the application is accepted and the delay is condoned. 3. So far as the review application is concerned, Mr. Bedre, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the plaintiff himself did not enter the witness box and General Power of Attorney 2 was examined, and therefore, the impugned Judgments of the Courts below should have been considered in that light. He would submit that the Second Appeal could be admitted on the substantial question of Law as to “whether the General Power of Attorney was duly authorized to depose or whether he was incompetent to “act” as provided under Order III Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code?” 4. The appeal memo filed before the first Appellate Court does not contain any such ground. The ground which was not raised before first Appellate Court cannot be taken up while considering the Second Appeal and it does not get characteristic of “substantial question of Law”. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiff’s suit for removal of encroachment mainly on strength of the experts opinion in as much as the Cadestral Surveyor identify the encroached portion and was examined in support of his report. No ground appears within the parameters under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, the application is dismissed. ( V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.) srm/ca/8028/09 3 4