( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1839 OF 2010 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 972 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 755 OF 2008 Maroti s/o Hanmanta Mane & another APPLICANTS VERSUS Baburao s/o Rangrao Patil & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. E.S. Murge, advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Bayas, advocate for the applicants. Mr. D.N. Chamle, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, advocate for respondent No.1. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 11th February, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. There is delay of 47 days in filing of the review application. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. 3. The review application is simultaneously heard. The review application is filed by the appellants who ( 2 ) were defendants in the suit. The suit was for mandatory injunction. The plaintiff’s case was that the appellants had closed a lane abutting to his house and his right to drift rain water falling from the roof of the house was obstructed. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court concurrently held that the easementary rights of the plaintiff were interfered with. It was noticed that a temporary wall was raised by the appellants (review petitioners) by placing a pile of stones in the middle so as to obstruct the regular flow of the rain water which was being drifted through the lane. The findings were rendered on facts and, therefore, this Court noticed absence of substantial question of law. Hence, the second appeal was dismissed. 4. On behalf of the review petitioners, it is argued that the map drawn by the Commissioner was required to be considered. It is also argued that observations in “Haryana Waqf Board v. Shanti Sarup and others” (2008) 8 SCC 671 also require consideration. The review petition cannot be entertained on the ground of ( 3 ) the controversy regarding finding about alleged encroachment. The authority referred to was not shown at the relevant time. There is no patent error noticed and the review petition falls outside the parameters of Order-XLVII Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, it is dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/ca1839-2010