IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 17 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 297 OF 2008 MR. UDAY SHRINIVAS VAIDYA ... Applicant Versus MR. ANAND VISHNU GAUDE AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the Respondent no.2. Coram:- F. M. REIS, J. Date:- 14th December, 2011 ORAL ORDER Heard Shri Ryan Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Shri A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above application seeks review of the Oral Order passed by this Court dated 28.04.2009. 3. Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant, has pointed out that this Court whilst passing the impugned Order, has come to the conclusion that the second application for execution filed by the Applicant was not barred by the principles of res judicata but, however, went to disallow the prayer of the Applicant to demolish the structures pursuant to the Decree. Learned Counsel further pointed out that this Court after coming to the conclusion that the second application was not barred by res judicata ought to have remanded the matter to the Executing Court for deciding the Execution Application on merits. Learned Counsel further pointed out that by the impugned Order, this Court has also refused to exercise the writ jurisdiction to direct the demolition of the suit structures. Learned Counsel further pointed out that there is an error apparent on the face of record which necessitates review of the impugned Order. 4. On the other hand, Shri Bhobe, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents pointed out that there is no error apparent on the face of record and, as such, the application deserves to be rejected. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the impugned Order in the Writ Petition no. 297/2008, were two Orders passed by the Executing Court, one was disallowing the prayer of the Applicant to appoint a Surveyor and the second one on the ground that the application was barred by the principles of resjudicata. Learned Counsel further pointed out that this Court has rightly appreciated the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and has come to the conclusion that the Applicant was not entitled for any reliefs in the said Writ Petition. Learned Counsel as such submits that there is no case made out for the review of the impugned Order. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that this Court whilst passing the impugned Order has come to the conclusion that the second execution application filed by the Applicant was to demolish all the structures which were not the subject matter of the Decree sought to be executed. Apart from that, this Court has also come to the conclusion that the Applicant had failed to identify the suit structure. Though by the impugned Order this Court has also held that the second application was not barred by the principles of resjudicata, nevertheless, on the aforesaid grounds, the Writ Petition came to be rejected. 6. Considering that the Orders impugned in the Writ Petition were two Orders passed by the Executing Court, one refusing to appoint a Surveyor and the other on the ground that the application was barred by the principles of res judicata, I find that there is no error apparent on the face of record which requires any review of the impugned Order. The present application is an appeal in disguise. There is no case made out for any review of the impugned Order. Hence, the application stands dismissed. F. M. REIS, J. arp/*