1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 196 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. Hon, Advocate instructed by Mr. R.S.Shejule, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.L.Kute, Advocate for resp. no. 3. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. The present review petition is filed by the original defendants and appellant in Second Appeal No. 389 of 1989. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks review of the Judgment and order passed by this Court on 16/4/2010. The plaintiff had filed Suit for possession, which came to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 420 of 1981 in the District Court. The District Court allowed the Appeal. The defendant aggrieved by the same, preferred Second Appeal No. 389 of 1989. This Court by its Judgment Order dated 16/4/2010 dismissed the said Appeal. The present petitioner seek review of the said Judgment and Decree passed by this Court on 16/4/2010. 2 3. Mr. Hon, the learned counsel instructed by Mr. R.S.Shejule, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court has not properly considered the agreement between the parties, so also, have not properly considered the concept of part performance as is embodied U/s 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Mr. Hon, the learned counsel further submits that the concept of adverse possession was not considered by this Court. The applicant had paid the total amount under the agreement to Vishwanath, this aspect was required to be considered. This Court, while delivering the Judgment in the Second Appeal No. 389 of 1989 has also not considered the efficacies of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the Judgment delivered by this Court. 5. The scope of review as contemplated U/s 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure is very limited. The jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the review application can not be expanded so as to sit in Appeal over the Judgment delivered by this Court. From the perusal of the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, it is clear that this Court has given finding on all the substantial questions of law on the basis of which the Second Appeal was admitted. The Court has also considered the provisions of Section 43 and 53-A of 3 the Transfer of Property Act. This Court while delivering the Judgment has considered in extenso the arguments advanced by the respective counsel for the parties and also dealt with the citations referred by them. 6. The grounds which are sought to be agitated in the present review petition, are beyond the scope and purview of review jurisdiction. There does not appear to be an error apparent on the face of record so as to invoke the review jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In light of the above, the review petition is rejected, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/RP 196.10