1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.23 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.815 OF 2007 Ananda Namdeo Kamble & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Rama @ Ramchandra Balku Kamble, since deceased through His Legal heirs 1. Phulabai Ramchandra Kamble & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Vishwanath S. Talkute for the Petitioners. Mr. Navin B. Shah i/b. Mr. Piyush Shah for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. Heard Mr. Talkute and Mr.Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Respondents, respectively. 2. The Petition is filed for review of the order dated 20th October, 2008. By the said order, the aforesaid Appeal filed by the Petitioners, came to be dismissed. Mr. Talkute, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the observations made by this Court at the bottom of paragraph no.1 of the said order to the effect that there was temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal, is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the Tahsildar was examined by the Petitioners in order to prove the statement of the Respondent’s son at Exhibit “90” and therefore, the finding of fact that the possession of the suit land is with Respondents is perverse. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the 2 Respondents, on the contrary submitted that no ground is made out for review under the provisions of section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. Having heard the respective Counsel, I do not find any merit in the Review Petition. It was Respondents’ suit for injunction simplicitor. There is no dispute that the Respondents are the owners of the suit property. There was temporary injunction in favour of the Respondents during the pendency of the Suit in the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court also recorded the finding of the fact that the Respondents are in possession of the suit property. In order to attack this finding, Mr. Talkute, relied upon the document at Exhibit “90” which is a statement of Respondent’s son recorded by the Tahsildar. The Lower Appellate Court, however, did not rely on this statement on the ground that the said statement is not given on oath. So far as the observation in paragraph no.1 of the said order is concerned, Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the Respondents, submitted that there was no injunction during the pendency of the Appeal in the Lower Appellate Court. However, this fact may not be relevant in as much as the finding of the fact after appreciating evidence on record is recorded by the Lower Appellate Court that the Respondents are in possession of the suit property and not the Petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the Review Petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)