1 RA St. 25292.2011 in SA 353.1990 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 25292 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 353 OF 1990 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :14/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The applicant/petitioner seeks review of the Judgment and order passed by this Court on 10/03/2011, by virtue of which the Second Appeal filed by the review petitioner was dismissed confirming the Judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 2. Mr. A.S.Shelke, the learned counsel for the review petitioner/applicant submits that even though the Special Leave Petition is dismissed, still the review petitioner can file the present review. The said proposition need not be dilated as the Apex Court in the case of Gangadhara Palo V/s Revenue Divisional Officer and another reported in 2011 ( 4 ) SCC – 602 has held that if the Special Leave Petition is dismissed without giving any reasons, there is no 2 RA St. 25292.2011 in SA 353.1990 merger of the Judgment of the High Court with the order of the Apex Court and the High Court can entertain the review petition. 3. Mr. Shelke, the learned counsel further submits that the issue of limitation was canvassed before this Court while arguing the Second Appeal and the same has also been recorded by this Court in the Judgment. The agreement of sale was executed on 02/04/1975. It laid down that the sale deed is to be executed after the permission is obtained from the competent authority to sale the property. After the execution of the agreement, it transpired that no permission is necessary, but, in stead of getting the sale deed executed, the plaintiff got executed “ bharna pawti ”. The limitation would start from the year 1975. The Suit is filed in the year 1982. In view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the Suit is barred by limitation. 4. The Second Appeal was admitted only on one substantial question of law, which reads as under : “ Whether trial Court has jurisdiction to pass a decree of specific performance without considering the norms laid down under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act ” ? 5. Though the Second Appeal was admitted only on the said substantial question of law, I considered the arguments advanced in respect of readyness and willingness. Even this 3 RA St. 25292.2011 in SA 353.1990 argument of the Suit being barred by limitation, would not be of any avail to the review petitioner. Both the Courts on the point of limitation also have concurrently held that the Suit is within limitation. Even otherwise, if it is to be accepted that as per the agreement of sale, the sale deed was to be executed after the permission was obtained from the competent authority, still after it transpired to the parties that no permission is required, the parties on their own volition thereafter executed “ bharna pawati ”. As such, the review petitioner could not have harped on the said agreement of sale as subsequently the “ bharna pawati ” was also executed by consent of parties. The Courts have come to the conclusion that the Suit is filed well within limitation from the date of refusal. Even otherwise, the same was not the substantial question of law, on which the Second Appeal was admitted. The scope of review U/s 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is in a very narrow compass. 6. In light of the above, no case for review is made out and the same is rejected. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/RA St. 25292.2011 in SA 353.1990 4 RA St. 25292.2011 in SA 353.1990