1 CRA No.921/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.921 of 2010 Shri Hemendra Vasudev Trivedi ... Applicant versus M/s.Asgi Enterprises ... Respondent ... Mr. Pramod Kini i/b M/s.thakordas & Madgavkar for the applicant Mr.Anilkumar Patil i/b R.M.Bhandari for respondent CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 18th January 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revision applicant. 2. The only ground urged by the revision applicant is that the trial court restricted the claim of the petitioner for possession to issue nos.1, 7 and 8 and did not consider the remaining issues. In paragraph no.1 of the judgment of the trial court, the trial court has observed: “By filing the purshis at Exhibit 61, the plaintiffs restricted their claims in this suit on the basis of issue nos.1, 7 and 8 only.” 2 CRA No.921/10 3. This statement of fact recorded by the trial court was not challenged in an appeal memo filed before the appellate bench. Revision applicant has not even annexed a copy of Exhibit-61 to the revision application memo. Today when asked, learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not have a copy of the purshis at Exhibit-61 filed in the trial court. As such, applicant cannot be allowed to raise the contention that the trial court erred in restricting the applicant’s claim for possession only to issue nos.1,7 and 8. No other ground was urged. Revision Application is rejected summarily. (D.G.KARNIK, J)