(1) CA. 7869.2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICAION NO. 7869 OF 2007 IN REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 3905 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2004 Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary died through LRs. Sulochana Ramdas Chaudhary and others .. Applicants VERSUS Anant Chunilal Kate .. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7872 OF 2007 IN REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 3905 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2004 Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary died through LRs. Sulochana Ramdas Chaudhary and others .. Applicants VERSUS Anant Chunilal Kate .. Respondent AND REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 3905 OF 2007 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 972 OF 2004 Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary died through LRs. Sulochana Ramdas Chaudhary and others .. Applicants VERSUS Anant Chunilal Kate .. Respondent (2) CA. 7869.2007 Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate h/f. Mr. M.H. Patil, Advocate for the applicants Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate h/f. Mr. K.P. Chawre, Advocate for the respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C.:- 1] Civil Application no. 7869 of 2007 seeks condonation of delay of 183 days in filing of this Review Application. The appellant initially filed Second Appeal no. 972 of 2004 in this Court and at admission stage by a detailed judgment, dated 27.7.2006, this Court dismissed the appeal mainly because there was no substantial question of law involved. After this order was passed the appellant went to a lawyer in Supreme Court who advised her that she should make an application for review. She said thereafter, she fell ill and was bed-ridden. She said thereafter, she took advice and filed this application. In the process, her application got delayed by 183 days. 2] The first question is whether this explanation is believable? The answer is in the negative. I am not inclined to believe the appellant’s case that she had gone to a lawyer in the Supreme Court, who is not named in the application. I am further, not inclined to believe that such lawyer would advise (3) CA. 7869.2007 not to approach the Supreme Court, but to go back to the same Court in an application for review. I am not inclined to believe the appellant’s story that she suffered from chicken guniya a debilitating illness etc. for want of documentary evidence. The story of the appellant appears a figment of imagination. The next reason for rejecting this application is the futility of the review application. The respondents-plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of possession of a small piece of land. It was their case that this small piece of land was included when the appellant had sold them a large piece of land. Both the Courts below held against the appellant. When the matter was heard by this Court at second appeal stage, this Court held that the sale deed executed by the appellant in favour of the respondents included the disputed area. This means that this Court held that even the disputed area was sold to the respondents. The review is sought of this finding of this Court. It is sought to be urged that the learned Judge, of this Court did not read the contents of the sale deed properly. Assuming that the learned Judge did not read the sale deed correctly, I think it would not give the appellant an opportunity to seek review of such order. Assuming that the assertion of the appellant is correct, then it would be a ground for appeal and not for review. I am not inclined to make any (4) CA. 7869.2007 observations regarding the order passed by my learned brother on 27.7.2006 but as I said above there appears no reason to entertain the review application. Civil Application no. 7869 of 2007 seeking condonation of delay, stands rejected. 3] In view of the order passed above, Civil Application no. 7872 of 2007 seeking stay and Review Application (st.) no. 3905 of 2007, do not survive and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) arp