1 RA 208.2010 in SA 127.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 208 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2010 Sumanbai W/o Sheshrao Thombare .... APPLICANT VERSUS Pandit Indarrao Borade ... NON APPLICANT Mrs. A.S.Rasal,Advocate for the applicant. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Leave to amend. 3. By present Review application, the applicant seeks review of the order passed by this Court on 8/10/2010 in Second Appeal No. 127 of 2010, thereby dismissing Second Appeal and confirming the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. 2 RA 208.2010 in SA 127.2010 4. Mrs. Rasal, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contends that much emphasis has been placed on the report of hand writing expert, which could not have been the basis of the Judgment and it is an error apparent on the face of record. In absence of oral evidence, the finding given by hand writing expert stands vitiated. 5. The scope of review, as contemplated under Section 114 read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is in a narrow compass. The said jurisdiction is to be exercised only in the case of an error apparent on the face of record. While entertaining review application, this Court can not sit as an appellate authority over the said Judgment. Second Appeal No. 127 of 2010 is decided not only on the basis of the report of hand writing expert,but the substantive evidence has been taken into consideration. The attesting witness to the sale deed was examined and his evidence is also taken into consideration for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had executed registered sale deed in favour of the father of the defendant, so also, the plaintiff could not prove the factum of fraud. The circumstances have also been taken into consideration that after the sale deed was executed in the year 1976, immediately thereafter name of the defendant’s father was mutated in the relevant record. All these factors have been taken into consideration, so also, the ground of limitation was considered. 3 RA 208.2010 in SA 127.2010 6. As there does not appear any error apparent on the face of record, the review application is dismissed, however with no orders as to costs. 7. In view of dismissal of review application, Civil Application for stay also stands dismissed. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] knp/RA 280.2010 in SA 127.2010