1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. REVIEW PETITION NO. 19/2009 Balaji s/o Manikrao Bhosale Petitioner. V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents. Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.J. Sonwane, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. C.R. Deshpande, for the petitioner. This review petition is filed by the present petitioner on 08.12.2008. Order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.1106/2005 dt. 9/9/2008 is sought to be reviewed in this petition. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel points out ground No.1. On query that on which ground petitioner is seeking review of the earlier oder passed by this court in S.A.1106/2005, counsel for the petitioner pointed out ground No.1 which is considered by me in its entirety. It is stated in this ground No.1 that nature of inam in question as to whether Khidmat Mash or Madat Mash was required to be considered in RCS No.118/2001. According to 2 petitioner if Madat Mash whether it has been abolished and re granted in favour of its occupants. Sale deed dated 31.12.1999 is also referred to in this ground No.1. It is also averred in this ground that all these aspect would fall outside the scope of jurisdiction of civil court in view of Section 2-A of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inam and Cash Grants Act and under section 3-A of Hyderabad Aitiyat Inquiries Act, 1952. According to petitioner these aspects of the case was not brought to the notice of the Honourable High Court while deciding Second Appeal. 2. Mr. Deshpande counsel for the petitioner took out some piece of paper from his docket and tried to read from this piece of paper. On query, he submitted that it is an order passed by Naib Tahasildar. On further query, he fairly states that copy is not placed on record neither copy is served to the learned A.G.P. who is appearing for respondents. 3. Review petition is to be considered by this Court under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 47. Apparent error or mistake on the record to be pointed out for invoking jurisdiction. Submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in relation to ground No.1, in my view, cannot be considered to be a ground for review. It is a matter of record that this court while passing earlier order dated 09.09.2008 in Second Appeal No.1106/2005 has recorded description of the property, subject matter of the suit with its meticulous area, date of 3 sale deed, date of filing of the suit, pleadings of the parties i.e plaintiff and defendants, this Court also has taken into account material which was brought on record in the suit, finding of the court at first instance, finding recorded by the First Appellate Court while deciding appeal. Second Appeal Considered by this Court on 09.09.2008 was within parameters of section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Said order now is sought to be reviewed under section 114 read with Order 47. Jurisdiction by this court under section 114 read with Order 47 has been considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1047. In substance Honourable Supreme Court has held that it is not the appellate neither revisional jurisdiction which is to be exercised by the court while considering review application filed by the party. 4. In my view, on touch stone of this judgment submission made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be said to be governed by Section 114 read with Order 47 of C.P.C. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel seeks permission to challenge the order passed by the Naib Tahasildar by filing appropriate proceeding before the authority competent. On query, Mr. Deshpande submitted that order passed by the Naib Tahasildar (Revenue) Udgir is dated 31.12.1999. Suit was decided on 19.12.2002 by the trial court. First Appeal was decided by the Appellate court on 4 26.10.2004. In my view, looking to these dates, which are given by Advocate Mr. Deshpande, it was possible for the present petitioner to seek such prayer when the second appeal was disposed of on 09.09.2008. At this stage, I am not inclined to grant such request made on behalf of the review petitioner in this review petition. 5. Review Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH ) JUDGE AAA/19.09 *****