1 RA 205.2011 in SA 295.2006 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 205 OF 2011 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. P.N.Kutti, Advocate for the applicant. ................................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :19/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present review petitioner/applicant is the original defendant. The respondent had filed Suit for possession. The said Suit is dismissed by the trial Court. In the Appeal filed by the original plaintiffs, the appellate Court decreed the Suit. The defendants had filed Second Appeal No. 295 of 2006 before this Court. The said Second Appeal was dismissed. The present review petition seeks review of the said order passed in Second Appeal. 2. Mr. Kutti, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in fact the property on which the applicant runs the 2 RA 205.2011 in SA 295.2006 shop, is directed to deliver the possession of said shop to the Public Works Department [ For short ‘ P.W.D. ’ ] and the said shop is not owned by the plaintiffs. Even the notice issued by the P.W.D. to the similarly situated 30 – 40 persons shows that the property is owned by the P.W.D. and not by the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, no decree could have been passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 3. According to the learned counsel, fresh evidence can be considered in an application for review. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relies on Rule 23 of Chapter IV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules. The learned counsel further contends that the plaintiffs were not aware of the exact boundaries of the property. As such, the same is good ground for review. 4. The scope of this Court in exercising its jurisdiction U/s 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is in a narrow compass. The same is restricted to the error committed on record. The case of the defendants before the Court was that of adverse possession. The reliance was placed on the report of the Court Commissioner, who had submitted that the suit property forms part of S.No. 113 and S.No. 113 is owned by the plaintiffs. In that premise, the decree was passed by the appellate Court and confirmed by this Court in the Second Appeal. It does not appear from the Judgments delivered 3 RA 205.2011 in SA 295.2006 by the Courts below or the pleadings that the applicant has raised ground that the P.W.D. is the owner of the property. In such circumstances, the said aspect can not be considered in review. 5. In light of the above, the review application is dismissed. No costs. 6. In view of the dismissal of the review application, the Civil Application No. 8384 of 2011 does not survive and is also disposed of. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/RA 205.2011 in SA 295.2006 4 RA 205.2011 in SA 295.2006