1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD 35. CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.146/2009 (ANTON SAVALERAM PARKHE V/S ST.LUKES HOSPITAL, SHRIRAMPUR THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr.P.P.Khandagale Patil, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. R.A.Tambe and Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Adv., for respondent (sole). ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:18-2-2010 P.C.:- 1. Civil Revision Application is heard finally. 2. The judgment and order decreeing employer's suit being RCS No.207/2004, dt.14.3.2008 was carried in RCA No.23/2008 and, by judgment dt.30.6.2009, the revisional applicants lost in the said appeal consequently, present Civil Revision Application. The learned District Judge-II, Shrirampur, by above order dt. 30.6.2009, directed the revisional applicant to deliver vacant and 2 peaceful possession of the suit premises to the owner/employer within three months from the date of the order. Said order is questioned by the original defendant/the revision petitioner. 3. Though a chequered history of rounds of litigation is projected, the conduct of present revisional applicant is, indeed, warranting that no interference could be evidenced in the present revision. The scope of revision itself is limited, as has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Pandurang Vs. Maruti ( AIR 1966 SC 153). 4. The revision petitioner in the revision petition has stated that RCS No.364/1999 was pending before the appellate Court. This is blatant false statement to the knowledge of the present applicant as the Second Appeal No.1049/1995, moved by present revision petitioner came to be dismissed. Another round of litigation entertained by the present 3 applicant in RCS No.237/2004 is also dismissed by order dt. 5.2.2008, saddling him with a cost of Rs.3,000/- in terms of Section 35-A of Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The contentions raised by the present applicant are indeed negatived in the Second Appeal. Then comes fresh contentions of renewal in employment oblivious to the fact that such employment was for a limited period of one year and not to be extended and not extended. Revisional applicant even did not work after Jan.,1997. Indeed, he had accident on 16.11.1996. He has initiated proceedings before the competent authorities where he got compensation. The revisional applicant could not prove that he was remitting rent for the premises though a claim was so agitated subsequently by the present applicant. The findings recorded by both the Courts, are in tune with the available evidence and do not warrant any interference. No scope in Civil 4 Revision Application. It is accordingly dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/146-09cra