IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 16 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 436 OF 2010 MR.SEBASTIAN LUCAS ... Applicant Versus MENINO CAMILO FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 15th July, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. This is an application for review of Order dated 17-6-2010. The Applicant's contention appears to be that the view held in Order dated 17-6-2010 is erroneous in law as it has failed to consider the provisions of Sections 4, 31 and 32 of the G.D.D.(Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. Review jurisdiction is not meant for correction of views but only errors apparent on the face of record. The plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and the only issue involved in such a suit is prior possession. Incidentally, the plaintiff might have stated that he is the mundkar but a statement like that does not give rise to framing of an issue that the plaintiff is a mundkar inasmuch as such an issue would also be irrelevant for the purpose of the suit which has been filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. In case the plaintiff is a mundkar, there are remedies available to the plaintiff for declaration of his status under Section 8-A, and for restoration of possession under Section 4 of the said Act. The plaintiff need not approach the Civil Court and then contend that the Civil Court ought to have referred the mundkarship claimed by him to be decided by the Mamlatdar. The plaintiff can always approach the Mamlatdar directly. There is no merit in this review application, and, consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.