IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO.725 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.874 OF 2006 Mr.Sambhaji Sakharam Dhaigude & Ors. .. Petitioner Versus Mr.Ramchandra Krishna Dhaigude .. Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar and Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for the petitioners. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12th February 2009. : 12th February 2009. : 12th February 2009. P.C.: . Heard counsel appearing for the review petitioners. He has invited my attention to two substantial questions of law urged in Second Appeal which have been reproduced in paragraph 2 of the order. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner is that the first substantial question of law incorporated in paragraph 2 has not been decided by this Court. He submitted that the submission of the appellants/review petitioners was that the agreement dated 23rd July 1986 could not have been read in evidence as the original of the said agreement was not produced and proved. He therefore submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in as (2) much as the said contention is not dealt with by this Court while deciding the Second Appeal. 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. Perusal of paragraph 4 of the judgment in the Second Appeal shows that this Court referred to the said contention and found that there was a finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court that the execution of the said agreement was duly proved. A reference is also been made to the finding of the 1st appellate Court that the 1st, 2nd and 4th appellants in the Second Appeal did not explain as to how their signatures appears on the agreement and as to how thumb impression of the 3rd appellant appears on the said agreement. This Court recorded that in view of the finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, no interference can be made. Thus, there is no merit in the submission that the first substantial question of law was not dealt with by this Court on merits. 3. The finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court is that the agreement dated 23rd July 1986 was duly proved. The said finding has been recorded considering the fact that except for their (3) denial, the appellants could not show as to how signatures of some of them and thumb impression of one of them appeared on the said agreement. In the circumstances, I find that there is not error apparent on the face of record. There is no ground for review. The Review Petition is accordingly rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)