1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA NO. 1255 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2007 (Vishwas Champatrao Nandurkar & Anr. vs. Jijabai Ukandrao Nandurkar & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. FEBRUARY 10, 2009. Heard Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the appellants/ applicants. The review is sought on two grounds. The first one is that the plaintiff herself did not enter the witness box and reliance is being placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., reported at AIR 2005 SC 439. It is further argued that the suit was simpliciter for injunction and there was no prayer for recovery or restoration of possession. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the records. The Courts have found that when there was prayer for removal of encroachment, the separate prayer for recovery of possession need not be there and also injunction is sought for removal of encroachment. I, therefore, 2 find the objection misconceived. Similarly, the contention about power of attorney entering the witness box is already considered and it has been found that the evidence on record clearly reveals that the property came to be purchased by Exh. 28 by Ukandrao through his independent source of income and therefore the admissions of son-in-law were not found to be relevant for deciding the controversy. This Court has found that the appellate Court has correctly appreciated this position in paras 9 & 10 while reversing the finding of the trial Court. No case is made out for review. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.