1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.62 OF 2010. ( Santosh Prabhakar Chiwane and ors. ..vs.. Smt.Chitra Vithoba Madavi) ......................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ......................................................................................................................................................... Mr.M.I.Dhatrak Adv. for the applicants. Mr.S.U.Nemade Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 19th OCTOBER, 2010. 1. This Civil Revision Application challenges Judgment and Order dated 26/3/2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ghatanji in Reg.Civil Suit No.31 of 2006. The Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. The applicant/Ori.defendant has been directed to hand over the peaceful and the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff was that she was wrongly dispossessed from the suit property on 15/6/2006 and hence the suit for restoration of possession was filed on 12/9/2006. 2. The defence was raised in the said suit that defendant no.3 was in possession of the suit property under the agreement 2 i.e. Makte-Patra dated 31/8/2004 and it was singed by the plaintiff. 3. The Trial Court has considered this aspect in para no. 21 of its judgment as under - “It is specific case of defendant that, plaintiff have prepared Makte Patra on the stamp paper of Rs.20/- and Shrikant Wajpayee and Satish Virdane have signed over it as witnesses. Hence, burden lies on the defendant to prove the same. Defendant in his cross examination admitted that, which petition writer has written the Makte Patra, he do not know. He further admitted that, where and at what time, it is written he do not know. He also admitted that, as he did not read it, hence he do not know the contents of it. Thus, as he do not know the contents and who has written the Makte Patra, the same is not proved satisfactorily. Further defendant did not examined the said Shrikant Wajpayee and Satish Virdande and therefore execution of Makte Patra is not proved properly, Hence, defendants have failed to prove that, defendant No.3 have taken the filed from the plaintiff on the rental basis on Makte Patra for 5 years and hence in view of above discussion I answer issue No. 5 in the negative”. 3 The document Makte patra placed on record was not original but it was a photo copy. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid reasons, the Trial Court has rejected the stand of the defendant. 4. Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for the applicants, has invited my attention to the evidence of the plaintiff that in 7/12 extracts name of the defendant no.3 has been written. The copy of the 7/12 extracts placed on record shows the name of defendant no.3. According to him, this aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. The applicant/defendant has also filed an application under Section 151, R/w provisions of Order 41 Rule 23 and 27 of the C.P.Code. In this application, a prayer is made that the applicant be permitted to produce original Makte Patra dated 31/8/2004 and to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for granting permission to lead additional evidence. Shri Dhatrak, learned counsel for the applicant, relies upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1991 Law Suit (SC) 495 (Ramesh Kumar ..vs.. Kesho Ram). He submits that the Apex Court has held that the subsequent events can be brought on record even in revision. 5. The fact that the plaintiff has admitted that the name of defendant no.3 has been recorded in 7/12 extracts is of no consequence. The defence of the defendant on the basis of Makte 4 Patra dated 31/8/2004 has been rejected by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has recorded the reasons for such rejection. There is no challenge to the finding recorded by the Trial Court in respect of Makte Patra. Hence, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Trial Court. There is no jurisdictional error which has been pointed out calling for an interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court under Section 115 of C.P.C. 6. So far as the application under Order 41 Rule 23 and 27 of C.P.Code is concerned, the learned counsel has failed to point out that such provision can be revoked by the revisional court also. Apart from this, the judgment which has been cited in support of this proposition in Ramesh Kumar’s case will be question of record in subsequent events and it does not deal with provision of Order 41 Rule 23 and 27 of C.P.Code. The said Judgment is, therefore, of no avail to the applicants. 7. In view of the above, there is no substance in the civil revision application an d hence it is dismissed. The application under Order 41 Rule 23 and 27 of C.P.C. is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE pzc