1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Civil Application No. 390 of 2009 IN M.C.A. St. No. 2720 of 2009 IN First Appeal No. 604 of 1994 [Kamal Manwani & another Vs. Devendrakumar Late Premnath Sama & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.V. Purohit with Mr. S.S. Voditel, Advs., for applicants. ----- CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATE : 24th July, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Shri S.V. Purohit with Adv. Shri S.S. Voditel for applicants- respondents. 2. Prayer in application is to condone delay of 362 days in filing Misc. Civil Application for review. 3. Judgment delivered in First Appeal was challenged before Hon ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition, and Hon ble Apex Court has 2 dismissed the same on 2nd February, 2009 by following order:- Heard learned Counsel for parties. No merits. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. 4. Thereafter present application and Review Application have been filed. Therefore, before issuing notices on prayer for condonation of delay, I have heard the learned counsel on merits to find out whether a case for review is being made out. It is argued that before 20th June, 1989, there was no dispute between the parties and as Income Tax Clearance Certificate was to be procured by defendant-seller, the draft copy of sale-deed was also to be prepared by him. It is urged that this Court did not frame any specific issue in relation to preparation of a draft copy of sale-deed, and in this background, attention is being invited to statutory obligations as contained in Section 55 (1) (d) of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. The perusal of Judgment, particularly Para 17 shows that the issue is considered by me. In Para 18 of the Judgment, this Court has also found that the plaintiffs were not possessing necessary amount to complete the sale-deed, and also had not handed over a draft copy of sale-deed to defendant, so as to enable 3 her to obtain Income Tax Clearance Certificate. The evidence on record has been appreciated and also documents are looked into. Thus, effort is to have re-appreciation of very same evidence again. It is not the case of applicants that it is first necessary for Court hearing First Appeal to frame issues and thereafter to proceed to decide the same. 6. In the circumstances, as I find that no case for review is being made out, I am not inclined to issue notice on application for condonation of delay. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. With the result, Misc. Civil Application St. No. 2720 of 2009 is also rejected. Judge |Hedau| 4