1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.160 OF 2009 Vinayak s/o Vithal Suryawanshi, age 52 yrs. Occu.labour work, r/o Osmanpura, Aurangabad, At present Nageshwarwadi, Rajaramji Nivas, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER (Orig.Plaintiff) VERSUS 1. Shantilal s/o Dagduram Muthiyan, Age 65 yrs. Occu.Business, r/o Near Metro Opticals, Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2. Maniklal s/o Gujalal Jaiswal, House No.234, Gawalipura Chhvani, Aurangabad. 3. Smt.Kamalabai w/o Maniklal (Respondent nos. 2 and 3 died) Legal heirs of res.no.2 and 3 are as under. 3-A) Shantilal s/o Maniklal Jaiswal, age 50 yrs, Occu. business, r/o. House No.934, Gawalipura, Chavani, Cantonment, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 3-B) Deelip s/o Maniklal Jaiswal, Age 42 yrs, Occu.Business, r/o. House No.934, Gawalipura, Chavani, Cantonment, Aurangabad, 2 Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Original Defendants) ... Mr.S.S.Pawar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S.V.Gangapurwala, Adv., h/f Mr. V.P.Latange, Adv, for respondent nos. 3-A and 3-B. ... CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE :11th Feb.,2010 *** PER COURT : 1. Heard finally. With consent, Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. A suit for specific performance in terms of an agreement in respect of plot No.11 from House (Municipal No.2-6-72) situated at Nageshwarwadi, Sundernagar, Aurangabad, came to be filed by the present applicant/plaintiff being RCS No.636/1979, it was dismissed. Consequently, RCA No.143/1990 was preferred before learned Additional District Judge, who by order dt.30.10.1999 did not accept applicants contention and confirmed the decree of dismissal. Hence, present revision. 3. The revision petitioner urged for grant of decree of specific performance in his favour. 3 4. Second Appeal No.371/2001 was preferred by present plaintiff, and by order dt.27.4.2004, the Appeal was dismissed by this Court, taking recourse to Section 102 of Civil Procedure Code observing, no Second Appeal is maintainable. 5. The crucial point in the matter, which has been dealt with by both the Courts, is the receipt, upon which the plaintiff is banking as purchaser of the property. The document is not witnessed by anybody. It is styled as a "receipt" without specifying as to what is the consideration agreed upon and the terms of the so called agreement. It is merely a receipt of having received Rs.500/- in cash in respect of sale of plot No.11, which the vendor agreed to sell. In order to prove this receipt, witness of the plaintiff has rebelled against the document by canvassing that it was of 1972 and that it was in relation to Plot No.13, though case of the plaintiff was, the receipt is dt.8.10.1977. 6. Both the Courts analyzed this document, coupled with the title to the very property and found that the discretion in terms of Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, could not be extended in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The lapses to which both the Courts have 4 discussed, do not require any interference. The Counsel for the respondent has taken recourse to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1966 SC 153 (V 53 C 35) (Pandurang V. Maruti) to impress about the scope of revision and to what extent the appreciation is permissible to this Court. The Apex Court has observed in paragraph No.10 as under: " The High Court cannot while exercising its jurisdiction under S. 115, correct errors of fact, however, gross they may be, or even errors of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. It is only in cases where the subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly invoked. There should not be a quarrel on what the Apex Court has mandated. The relief of specific performance, as has been settled, being a discretionary relief, the plaintiff has to come with a sound case to seek discretion in his favour. The eventualities, by way of evidence, surfaced before the Court did not indicate such course. The discretion was judicious, does not require any interference in the revisional 5 jurisdiction. Consequently, Civil Revision Application lacks merit. It is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] agp/160-09cra