-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2376 OF 2007 In WRIT PETITION NO.1131 OF 1999 M/s.Shelter Developers : Applicant V/s. Smt.Gangubai Govind Babar (since deceased) & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar with Mr.K.S.Dewal for the applicant. Mr.R.S.Apte for respondent nos.2A to 2C, 3 & 4. Mr.G.R.Rege with Mrs.S.A. Mudbidri for respondent no.5. Mr.J.P.Dubey for respondent nos.3(a) to 3(g), 4(a) to 4(e) & 5 in W.P. no.5140 of 2005. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2008. P.C. 1. By this review application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 23.8.2005 passed by this Court disposing of the Writ Petition in accordance with the Consent Terms filed by the parties. The applicant is M/s.Shelter Developers. They claim to be the purchaser of the land from Babars, who was the petitioner in Writ -: 2 :- Petition no.1131 of 1999, the respondents. It, however, appears from the interim order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 28.2.1996 that they took the land from one Chaudhary, who is the confirming party, according to the opponent no.1. 2. The dispute between the parties in the Writ Petition was as follows:- According to the applicant, Babars had challenged the order of the M.R.T. holding that they are not tenants of the land which is owned by M/s.Estate Investment Company Private Limited. In that petition, Babars entered into a compromise which was recorded by this Court for disposing of the petition. By that compromise, Babars accepted, inter alia, that they had no right in the land in question and that the rights in the land belongs to the landlords i.e. M/s.Estate Investment Company Private Limited. Certain other benefits were exchanged between the parties. At the time when the compromise was submitted for sanction, admittedly, the applicant was not a party to the Writ Petition. He had challenged the very same order of the M.R.T. in another Writ Petition which had not even been moved. They were thus not allowed to object to the compromise. -: 3 :- 3. The attempt on the part of the applicant is to open the compromise by way of this Review Application. It is difficult to accept the contention on behalf of the applicant that they as a purchaser had a right to obstruct one of their vendors i.e. Babars from admitting (in a compromise) that he had no such right to the land merely because he had claimed all along that he was a tenant. This may lead to the position that the applicant may be deprived of the representation that Babar is the owner. In that he would have an adequate remedy in law. There is nothing pointed out in law that could have prevented Babars from entering into a compromise with the landlord and take the position therein that they had no right or interest in the land. 4. Mr.Jahagirdar, the learned counsel for the applicant, relied on the well-settled proposition of law that a review application may be granted at the instance of a third-party where the party is aggrieved and can point out an inherent lack of jurisdiction which is patent or fraud or collusion. It is not possible in these proceedings to enter into and come to the conclusion that there is a fraud committed and the statement made by Babars in the Consent Terms that they had no right, title or interest in the land is vitiated by fraud and that too in a review application in this Court. There is no -: 4 :- dispute between the parties that the applicant has filed Suit No.551 of 1998 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, in which they have claimed reliefs in respect of the land in question. The applicant would be entitled to raise all such questions in the civil suit or file a fresh civil suit as may be advised in law. 5. In these circumstances, there is no merit in the Review Application which is hereby rejected. S.A. BOBDE, J.