1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR M. C. A. NO. 366 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 162 OF 2001 1. ABDUL SATTAR SHER MOHAMMAD QURESHI & 23 ORS. .. PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1. HAJI MUSTAQ AHMAD SHER MOHD. & 9 ORS. .. RESPONDENT/S Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Smt. A. P. Shinde Adv for applicants. Shri Z. A. Haq Adv for R-1 & 8. Shri S. P. Hedaoo Adv for R-3. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 1 st SEPTEMBER, 2009. This review application has been filed against the 2 judgment rendered by this Court on 01.12.2008 whereby the second appeal was dismissed. Second Appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Additional District Judge under Section 72 Bombay Public Trust Act. The question related to the holding of the meetings and the change reports submitted by the parties. This Court had found while dealing with the second appeal that the meetings dated 01.06.1987 and 02.11.1987 were never held and the decision rendered by the Additional District Judge was correct. Holding so the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted before me that this Court had not taken into consideration the cash book and other documents which this Court should have taken into consideration. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Court ought not to look into those documents because production of those documents at the stage of second appeal was rejected by this Court by a detailed order. He submits that those documents having been rejected , they could not be the base for decision of the appeal. Learned counsel for the 3 appellant had taken me through Ex. 116, the list of members which is said to be displayed by the Society and the list relates to the life members. As far as this list is concerned it appears that this list was taken into consideration by this Court and this Court had found that the said list was and could be a forged or fabricated document. It is not shown to me that how that finding recorded by the Court was incorrect. The learned counsel submitted that certain documents which were filed before trial Court were not considered by the Court. All those documents to which reference was made by the learned counsel during the course of the arguments were referred to by this Court and they have been appropriately dealt with even at the time of the hearing of the second appeal by this Court. No mistake apparent on the face of record was made out nor it is shown that any evidence which ought to have been considered is not considered at all. In the circumstances I do not find any substance in the review. The same is dismissed. JUDGE svk 4 5 6 7