1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD C.A. NO.12349/2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 902/2006 Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for appellant Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent sole. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 21st July, 2010 PER COURT : 1 This review is filed against the order passed by my learned predecessor dismissing the appeal at admission stage. The main grievance of the appellant/s is that my learned predecessor did not give a finding as to whether there existed any substantial question of law arising in the appeal. According to the appellant/s, following two questions were substantial questions of law. (i) Whether the learned judge of the lower appellate Court committed error in rejecting the appellant's/s application under Section 41 Rule 27 of Cr.P.C. in seeking permission to lead additional evidence ? (ii) Whether the learned judge of the lower appellate Court, committed grave error of law in rejecting the application, seeking amendment in the plaint. 2 The appellant also contends that besides this, there could have been more substantial questions arising in this appeal. The submission made on behalf of the appellant/s is completely devoid of merit. Having gone through the impugned order, I found that my learned predecessor discussed the questions mentioned above and held against the appellant/s. My learned predecessor clearly held that the learned judge of the Court below did not commit any error in 2 rejecting the two applications of the appellant at first appeal stage. In view of this, there was no question of law for my learned predecessor to decide as to whether there arose any substantial question of law. It appears that when the appeal was argued for admission, all that was suggested to the Court was, on the basis of the above questions, it could be a fit case for remand. Rejecting such plea as said above, my learned predecessor held that the learned judge of the lower appellate Court, did not commit any mistake in rejecting the applications of the appellant and so there was no need even for remand of the case. In view of this, my learned predecessor impliedly but clearly indicated that there arose no substantial question of law in the appeal. 3 In support of his submission, Shri Kulkarni learned Advocate appearing for appellant referred to two judgments of Supreme Court namely (i) Board of Control for Cricket, India and another Versus Netji Cricket Club and others reported in AIR SCW 2005 page 230 (ii) Shyam Gopal Bindal and others Versus Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in 2010 (2) All M.R. 465. Both these judgments are not supporting the submissions made by Mr. Kulkarni and I do not think it necessary to discuss the ratios of these judgments in this short order. ORDER The review stands dismissed with cost of Rs.4,000/-. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] tsk/