1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION' REVIEW PETITION NO.17 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.840 OF 2007 Yadav Hari Pagire : Petitioner. Versus Raosaheb Rangrao Jadhav : Respondent. ALONG WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.18 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.848 OF 2007 Yadav Hari Pagire : Petitioner. Versus Raosaheb Rangrao Jadhav & anr : Respondents. Shri.Shankar P. Thorat for the Petitioners. Shri.Ramesh Dubey i/by M/s. Jay & Co. for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J DATED : JULY 03, 2009 COMMON P.C. (IN CHAMBER). 1. The above Review Petitioners have been filed seeking review of the order dated 28th August 2008 whereby the Second Appeals being Second Appeal No.840 of 2007 and Second Appeal No.848 of 2007 were rejected. 2 2. The said Second Appeals were filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 13/9/2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Niphad in Regular Civil Appeal Nos.57 of 2001 and 58 of 2001 whereby the Decree dated 29/6/2001 passed by the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge, Junior division, Yeola in Regular Civil Suit Nos.123 of 1986 and 246 of 1995 was confirmed. The Petitioner herein is the original Appellant in the said Second Appeals. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings in favour of the Respondent herein as regards the specific performance of contract sought by him. The Courts below have also recorded a finding that the Plaintiff i.e the Respondent herein was always ready and willing to peform his part of the contract. 3. It is sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Majunath Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hansi v/s. Tammanasa reported in AIR 2003 SC 1391, that the Courts below have erred in recording a finding that the Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and this Court has also erred in confirming the said finding. 3 4. In my view, it is not open for the Petitioner to reagitate the issue as the said Second Appeals have been dismissed by confirming the findings of the Courts below. Accepting the contention of the Petitioner would amount to allowing the Petitioner to re-argue the matter and re- opening the issue which is impermissible in the review jurisdiction. 5. Considering the grounds which are set out, for seeking review of the said order as well the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, no case is made out for review under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the above Review Petitions which are accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]