1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.240 of 2010 In Second Appeal No.220 of 2009 (D) (Rajan s/o Rangaswami Reddy v. Vyankatesh s/o Shriniwas Reddy and others) Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.524 of 2010 In Second Appeal No.214 of 2009 (D) (Rajan Rangaswami Reddy v. Madhusudan Munnaswami Reddy and others) Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.525 of 2010 In Second Appeal No.221 of 2009 (D) (Rajan Rangaswami Reddy v. Madhusudan Munnaswami Reddy and others) Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.526 of 2010 In Second Appeal No.371 of 2008 (D) (Rajan Rangaswami Reddy v. Madhusudan Munnaswami Reddy and others) 2 Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.527 of 2010 In Second Appeal No.213 of 2009 (D) (Rajan Rangaswami Reddy v. Madhusudan Munnaswami Reddy and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order In Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.240 of 2010 : Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri S.I. Jagirdar, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Shri N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 6. Shri D.G. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.9 to 18. In Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.524 of 2010 : Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 6. In Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.525 of 2010 : Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 6. In Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.526 of 2010 : Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 6. In Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.527 of 2010 : Shri Amol Mardikar, Advocate for Applicant. Shri N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2,3,4 and 6. 3 Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 4 th July, 2011 1. While issuing notice in Misc. Civil Application (Review) No.240 of 2010 filed in Second Appeal No.220 of 2009 (D), this Court had passed an order as under : “1. This Court, by order dated 03.02.2010 passed in Second Appeal No.220/2009 has dismissed the second appeal. This application has been moved seeking review of the said order. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the order, which is reproduced as under : “4. The appellate Court recorded a finding that in Special Civil Suit No.6/1969, although gift deed dated 07.03.1951 was considered, it did not pertain to plot no.52. The appellate Court further recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have not produced on record even a single document to show that Dr. Parthasarthi was the owner of the plot no.52. It has further recorded a finding that no such document was filed in Special Civil Suit No.6/1969 and even till date no document was filed by appellant to show that Dr. Parthasarthi was owner of plot no.52. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that gift deed dated 07.03.1951 is not placed on record of the Courts below.” 4 2. Along with this application for review, learned counsel for the appellant has filed application dated 14.11.2002 said to have been filed before the trial Court for filing documents on record as per the list. This was marked as Exh.-137. In para 2 of the application, it is mentioned that the plaintiff has to file certified copy of “will” dated 16.04.1983 and gift deed dated 07.03.1951 on record. The list of documents is also placed on record as Annexure-2, showing that gift deed dated 07.03.1951 was placed on record of the trial Court. Copy of gift deed is also placed on record of this Misc. Civil Application. 3. Mr. Mardikar, learned counsel for the appellant has also urged that it was a misstatement of fact made before the Court when it recorded statement that it is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the gift deed dated 07.03.1951 is not placed on record of the Courts below. He submits that the said document was filed on the record of the trial Court. The learned counsel relied upon judgment in Board of Control for Credit, India and another ..vs.. Netaji Cricket Club and others. The learned counsel invited my attention to para nos.89 and 90 of the said judgment which are reproduced below. “89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important 5 piece of evidence of when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in O.47 Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine “actus curiae neminem gravabit”. 4. The question as to what is the effect of gift deed produced on record, which is dated 07.03.1951 and whether the said document is admissible in evidence are all the questions which would arise subsequently. However, prima facie, it appears that the submissions made before this Court and the observations made by lower appellate Court in respect of production of gift deed dated 07.03.1951 are not in conformity with the factual position emerging from the record of the courts below. 6 5. In view of the judgment of the apex Court, issue notice on this application returnable on 23.03.2010.” 2. It is not disputed by the learned counsels appearing for the parties that the gift-deed dated 7-3-1951 was placed on the record of the Courts below. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the copy of the gift-deed dated 7-3-1951 placed on record. It is the gift-deed executed by one G. Parthasarthi. There is no mention of Plot No.52 in the said gift-deed. There is nothing on record to show that said G. Parthasarthi was the owner of Plot No.52. In view of this, mere production of the gift-deed dated 7-3-1951 does not alter the findings recorded by the Courts below. 3. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl