1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.2 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.1254 OF 2005 Vishwanath Ramchandra Bal (dead) by Lrs. Smt.Malti V.Bal & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt.Sumati Kashinath Bal (dead) by Lrs.Smt.Vasundhara V.Ghaisas .. Respondent Mr.Mandar Limaye for petitioners Mr.S.V.Sadavarte for respondent Nos. 1(1) to 1(4), 2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 4th March 2008 P.C. . The review petitioner’s are the original plaintiffs and Appellants in the second appeal. 2 . It is their case that on 18th July 2007, the Second Appeal was dismissed at the stage admission. However, when the second appeal 2 was argued the Court has not taken into consideration an application filed (Exh.40) for amendment of original plaint. It is contended that without deciding the said application, the lower appellate court concluded hearing of the first appeal. The matter remained undecided. 3. The argument of Mr.Apte is that it was orally urged before this Court when the second appeal was placed for admission that the application for amendment Exh.40 was not decided but in the light of the fact that there was no material produced, that submission was not considered. Further, the argument is that this Court should have taken into consideration an admission made by the respondents in their supplementary written statement in the Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 1998 to the effect that the cattle shed is provided to the share of the original plaintiff and the said Aawat was part and parcel of the cattle shed. This submission 3 goes to the root of the controversy and, therefore, should have been considered by this Court. 4. I am unable to accept this contention inasmuch as there does not appear to be any reference to the admission allegedly made by the respondents in their supplementary written statement in R.C.S.No.50 of 1998. The Second appeal arises out of the judgement rendered in R.C.S.No.4 of 1997. The judgements and decrees of the courts below also proceed upon the footing that the pleadings in that suit alone are taken into consideration. I have perused judgement of the trial court so also that of the lower appellate court. There is no reference therein to the pleadings in the Regular Civil Suit No.50 of 1998, although, the judgement is rendered on 19th March 2001. 5. Same is the position with regard to the 4 judgement of the first appellate court. Thus, in the review petition, in the second appeal for the first time, this alleged admission has been relied upon. That is obviously impermissible and cannot be taken into consideration. Further, the argument that Exh.40 was not decided but yet the lower appellate court proceeded to deliver the judgement is concerned, even in that behalf, it can safely be held that there is no ground in the memo of second appeal complaining about pendency of Exh.40. During the pendency of the appeal as well and while arguing the same before the lower appellate court, there does not appear to be any reference made to the amendment application. The appeal was decided by the lower appellate court on the basis of available record and parties addressed the lower appellate court on merits without in any manner pressing the amendment application. 6. In such circumstances, now review of the 5 judgement of this Court which confirms the concurrent findings of fact on the ground that the first appellate court omitted to consider the application for amendment of plaint cannot be granted. The review jurisdiction is not meant for introducing all these aspects. The limited jurisdiction that is conferred upon this Court by section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. does not permit reopening of the matter on such aspects, more so, when they are purely of facts and sought to be introduced for the first time. 7. There is no merit in the review petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)