1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 139 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 951 OF 2006 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mrs. S.G.Chincholkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.N.Gadegaonkar for Resp. No. 1. ............................. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 16/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application for review of the order dated 23/09/2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 951 of 2006, by virtue of which the Second Appeal was summarily dismissed. 2. Mrs. Chincholkar, the learned counsel submits that there is error apparent on the face of record. The suit property is an ancestral property of Maruti Kadam i.e. father of defendant no. 1 and after the death of Maruti, defendant no. 1 has share in the suit property, part of which is sold by defendant no. 1 in favour of Jaiwantrao. Defendant no. 2 is also Class-I heir of Maruti and can not be excluded from his property by mother. 2 As such, the learned counsel submits that there is an error apparent on the face of record. 3. Mr. Gadegaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondent states that no error has been committed by the Court by dismissing the Appeal. The Court has taken into consideration that Chandrabhagabai has failed to discharge her burden to prove that the thumb impression was obtained by fraud. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts below and the Second Appeal was dismissed. 4. The scope of review under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in a very narrow compass. The Court while dealing with the review application, can not sit as an appellate forum over the judgment sought to be reviewed. No error apparent on the face of record appears. More over, the learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the parties have also compromised the matter. 5. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the review application is rejected. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/RP 139.10 in SA 951.06