1 Rev Appl.No.4/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.223 OF 2010 Vishvanath S/o Jagannath Kshrisagar ... Applicant. Versus The President, Nagar Parishad Sillod, Tq.Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.C.Patil, advocate for the applicant. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.02.2011. PER COURT 1. The applicant has filed the present Review Application, seeking review of the order dated 30.11.2010, passed in Second Appeal No.223 2 Rev Appl.No.4/11 of 2010. 2. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contended that in fact, the appeal filed by the defendant No.3 before the lower appellate Court itself was not tenable as the suit of the present applicant/original plaintiff was U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act, and no appeal is provided if the judgment is passed by the trial Court exercising its jurisdiction U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Nair Service Society Ltd. Vs. K.S.Alexander and others" reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1165, the true owner is expected to follow due procedure of law to evict the person in possession. 3. The scope to entertain Review Application as per Section 114 read with Order 47 of the C.P.C. is in a very narrow compass. The jurisdiction to entertain a Review can only be exercised on an error apparent on the face of 3 Rev Appl.No.4/11 record. While dismissing the Second Appeal it has been observed that the plaintiff could not establish his possession over the land admeasuring 25x10 or even 10x12 fts. as the plaintiff was claiming his possession on the basis of lease deed executed by the Municipal Council. There was no such lease deed executed nor any Resolution of the Municipal Council substantiating the case of the plaintiff. The case was purely based on appreciation of evidence. 4. The appellant in his appeal memo had not raised the ground that appeal before the lower appellate Court was not maintainable nor same was argued while deciding Second Appeal. Moreover, the suit of plaintiff was not U/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiff had initially filed suit for injunction necessarily U/s 38 of the Specific Relief Act. As such the contention of the learned counsel that suit was U/s 6 of Specific Relief Act, is not sustainable. 5. In light of the fact that there is no 4 Rev Appl.No.4/11 error apparent on the face of record, the review application being devoid of any merit is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/Rev4.11