1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Civil Application No. 658 OF 2009 (In MCA St.No. 8449/09 in W.P. 1336/97) Zadba Maroti Bidwaik (Dead thr. L.Rs.) & ors. v. Deepak s/o Namdeo Dhamgaye & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. D.L. Dharmadhikari Advocate for the Applicants/Respdtts 1 to 4. Mr. R.L. Khapre with Mr. S.P.Kshirsagar Advocate for the N.As./Petnrs. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 17 th FEBRUARY,_2010. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for review of the judgment dated 18.10.2008 in W.P. No. 1336 of 1997 rendered by this Court. Heard learned counsel for rival parties. Perused the application. For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned. C.A. Disposed of. MCA St.No. 8449/09 By this application, the applicants/ 2 respondents 1 to 4 seek review of the order dated 18.10.2008 in W.P. No. 1336 of 1997 rendered by this Court. 2. In support of the review application Mr.Dharmadhikari learned counsel for the applicants vehemently argued that since none had appeared for the review-applicants when the aforesaid writ petition was decided on facts, wrong observation regarding passing over of title and possession has been made. According to him even if the land falls under urban agglomeration, Section 89 of The Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act is attracted and therefore the finding recorded by this Court is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel then argued that Special Civil Suit No.145 of 1989 is pending between the parties but this fact was not reported to this Court when the impugned judgment was made by this Court. 3. Per contra, Mr.Khapre and Mr.Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the non-applicants, jointly opposed the review application and argued that the judgment and order under review itself clearly shows that this Court has not decided anything more than the fiscal entry regarding mutation. This Court could not have decided the title and for that matter even so far as possession is concerned, Civil Court is the ultimate court which is competent to decide the said issue. The observations made in regard to possession under review are in relation to mutation entries and the sale-deeds and therefore no case for review is made out. 3 4. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties, at the outset, I find that this Court found that the sale-deeds were admittedly executed. Whether or not those sale-deeds were legally executed by proper person is a matter which has not and could not be decided under the judgment under review. Similarly, so far as possession is concerned, which issue has been raised by Mr.Dharmadhikari, the same will have to be decided by the Civil Court which is the competent court to decide civil rights of parties. Similarly, the objection regarding validity or otherwise in relation to urban agglomeration are the matters which are left open for decision by the civil Court or any other Competent Court. . With these observations, this review petition stands disposed of. JUDGE /TA/ 4