FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ...RA/125/2010 BHARATBAI SRIMANT GOMSALE V/S BHIMRAO RAGHOBA GOMSALE AND ORS ... 1. This Court, by a reasoned order recorded on 8.2.2010, dismissed the Second Appeal presented by the Review Applicant / plaintiff at an admission stage. Original plaintiff had instituted a suit claiming specific performance of the agreement. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, whereas, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal presented by the plaintiff and instead of granting decree of specific performance of agreement, exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff and directed the defendants to refund the consideration amount along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. The decree passed by the first appellate Court was subjected to challenge in the Second Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff. This Court did not thought it fit to interfere in the exercise of the discretion by the first appellate Court and as such, while confirming the decree passed by the first appellate Court, awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs. 40,000/- receivable by the plaintiff. 2. Heard S/Shri U.R.Kulkarni and Shri P.M.Yelnoorkar, Advocates for the applicant and Shri S.S.Choudhari, learned Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the record. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders. COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS (2) RA/125/2010 3. The objections raised in the Review Application are touching the merits of the controversy and in order to appreciate the questions raised, it would be necessary to probe in to the findings of facts recorded by the Court below. While considering the review application tendered by the original plaintiff / applicant herein, it would not be permissible to probe into the questions of facts. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has failed to point out any error of law, apparent on the face of record, necessitating causing interference in the Review Application. The Review Application is devoid of substance and it stands rejected. No order as to costs. Dt.14.3.2011 (R.M.BORDE, J.) akl