1 C.A.NO.12224/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12224 OF 2004. IN SECOND APPEAL NO.403 OF 1989. Bansilal Banechand Khabiya, (Deceased) through L.Rs. 1. Smt.Padmabai w/o Bansilal Khabiya & others. ...Applicants. VERSUS Vithal Vishwanath Labade ...Respondent. ... Mr.D.K.Kulkarni,Advocate for the applicants. Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 8th September, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. Perused the impugned judgment. While passing the impugned judgment, it is said, the learned 2 C.A.NO.12224/2004 single Judge of this Court did not take into account ground Nos.C, D & E of the appeal memo, for the purpose of formulating the substantial questions of Law. Without taking such a step, it is said, the learned Judge proceeded to decide the appeal. I do not think the complaint/grievance would amount to an "error on the face of record". It was necessary for the applicant to challenge the judgment and decree in the Apex Court, rather than making this application for review. The application stands rejected. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp