IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 838/2010 in APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 93/2010 (Smt. Shakuntala Gurusingh Motghare vs. Baburao Damduji Meshram and others) ...................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ...................................................................................................................................................................... Shri M.F.Khan, counsel for the applicant. Shri M.V.Jain, counsel for Respondent no.1 Shri R.R.Shrivastava, counsel for R-3 and R-4. ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 12th OCTOBER, 2010. By this application, the review is sought of the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2010, of this Court in A.O. No. 93/2010. 2] The trial Court granted the status-quo pending the decision of the suit, which was the subject matter of challenge in A.O. No. 93/2010. This Court set aside the order of status-quo. It was observed that earlier several applications were made for grant of injunction and the same were rejected. It was held that, the trial Court had committed an error in granting the status-quo order contrary to the earlier order passed by the Court, which attained the finality. 3] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that by deed of cancellation dated 19.1.2000, which is unregistered one, the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1 on 26.10.1998 was cancelled. However, this fact was not pointed out to the Court when the A.O was not decided. 4] The A.O was decided after hearing the parties. Hence, it cannot be a ground for review that by executing the deed dated 19.1.2000, the power of attorney dated 26.10.1998 was cancelled. Even otherwise this aspect has been considered in the judgment. If point urged is allowed to be argued, it will amount to re-hearing of matter. Hence, there is no substance in this review application. The same is dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit