1 R.A. 185/2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 185/2010 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 5th October, 2011. Mr. S.S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. L.D. Vakil, Advocate for respondent sole. 1. Heard. 2. The review is made apparently taking advantage of the observations made in the previous order about difference in certified true copies of the suit sale deed. I have already expressed my view earlier that even though there is difference between the said certified true copies, the same can not support the case of the appellant. To elaborate this further, I would say that the difference that appears in the certified true copies of the suit transaction, can be one of the circumstances for proving the appellant’s case that she did not receive consideration. However, the Courts below did not accept her case that she was not paid consideration at the time of the execution of the sale deed. So, despite of this advantageous circumstance, the appellant could not prove her case. 2 R.A. 185/2010 Therefore, the review can not succeed. The review application is dismissed. [A.V. NIRGUDE,J.] ts k/Oct.2011/5th/ra185.10