1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.36 OF 2008 Keshav s/o Wakoji Badenar ... PETITIONER (Original Plaintiff) VERSUS Smt.Mathurabai w/o Venkati Badenar ... RESPONDENT (Original Plaintiff) ..... Shri H.I. Pathan, Advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM : S.P. DAVARE, J. DATED : 7th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER : 1. Perused. Heard Shri Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present Civil Revision Application has been directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Kandhar in Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004 on 30.6.2007 and petitioner prayed that same be quashed and set aside. 2 3. The petitioner (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No. 64/2002 against the respondent (original defendant) for the recovery of amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the earnest money on the basis of alleged agreement of sale dated 20.6.2000. However, the said suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Loha vide judgment and order dated 5.1.2004. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 5.1.2004, the petitioner (original plaintiff) preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004 before the District Court, Kandhar. However, the said Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004 also came to be dismissed by learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Kandhar, by judgment and order dated 30.6.2007. The petitioner / plaintiff herein has challenged the correctness and legality of the said judgment and order dated 30.6.2007 in the present Civil Revision Application. 4. At the outset, the contention of the petitioner / plaintiff is that both the lower Courts have not appreciated the evidence in respect of the agreement of sale dated 20.6.2000 in the proper perspective which is the substantial question of law in the present Civil Revision Application. However, the petitioner had the opportunity before the learned lower appellate Court to get his alleged grievance redressed in respect of the alleged non appreciation of agreement of sale dated 20.6.2000. However, even the leaned Adhoc District Judge-1, Kandhar, while dismissing the Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004, endorsed the view of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Loha in respect of the said agreement. It is held concurrently by both the learned lower courts that the amount of Rs. 3 15,000/- was repaid back to the petitioner / plaintiff herein and apparently, considering the reasoning adopted by both the lower Courts, the said finding cannot be faulted with. 5. Apart from that, the alleged non appreciation of agreement dated 20.6.2000 by both the lower Courts in fact cannot be considered as law point in the Civil Revision Application since the petitioner / plaintiff had ample opportunity to agitate the said aspect before the leaned trial Court and also to put forth the said grievance before the leaned lower appellate Court, but the petitioner/ plaintiff failed before both the said forums and the said aspect cannot be overlooked. 6. In the circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by leaned Adhoc District Judge-1, Kandhar in Regular Civil Appeal No.9/2004 on 30.6.2007 and no interference therein is warranted under the revisional jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the present Civil Revision Application fails and same stands dismissed at the admissions stage itself. (Shrihari P. Davare, J.) fmp/cra36.08