IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR M.C.A.685 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.368 OF 1990 Digambar Deshmukh ..vs.. Pancham Karunya ================================== CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE:20.10.2008 Prayer is to review the judgment dated 15.1.2008. Heard Advocate Deshpande for applicant. Nobody appears for respondent though served. He contends that a suit for partition filed by other co-owners has been dismissed on technical ground that all properties were not included in it. He states that finding that property is joint family property has attained finality and in such circumstances the direction in judgment and decree dated 31.7.1990 delivered by Additional District Judge Wahsim in R.C.A. No.140/1989 to handover possession of property forming subject matter of suit for specific performance therefore needs to be set aside. According to him, if it is not set aside there is inconsistency and contradiction in the judgments. He also argues that though the issue in relation to money lending is considered by this court, it has not been considered correctly and in any case the non applicant needs to be directed to accept the amount of money lent and the decree for specific performance needs to be set aside. He also argues that share which ultimately may become available to the non applicant purchaser is small and it will be a fragment hit by provision of section 8-A of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act . It is apparent that this court along with Second Appeal No.368/1990 has decided Second Appeal No.676/2004 and 683/2004 on same day. The suit for partition has been dismissed and the judgment and decree mentioned above forming subject matter of Second Appeal No. 368/1990 is maintained for reasons recorded in the judgment. The transaction has not been found to be money lending one. Similarly, if contingency of working out shares of non applicant Pancham arises, and the executing court finds that provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act are in any way attracted appropriate remedies if open to the parties can be resorted to. On none of the grounds placed before me a case for review is made out. Application is therefore rejected. No cost. JUDGE smp.