1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.195 OF 2010 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13484 OF 2010 Indirabai w/o Baburao Dhangare, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Fulambri, Taluka Fulambri, District Aurangabad. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Sunderabai w/o Baburao Dongare, Age: 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Fulambri, Taluka Fulambri, District Aurangabad & Anr. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, Advocate for applicant. Shri. P.F. Patni, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. H.D. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2. .... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. RESERVED ON : 26/10/2010 PRONOUNCED ON: 28/10/2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 2. The present Review Application is preferred by the original defendant No.2-appellant for review of the order dated 08-07-2009 passed by this Court in the Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009, dismissing the same. 3. In the present case, respondent No.1 Sunderabai - original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1061 of 2003 in the Court of 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad for recovery of possession of the suit property i.e. agricultural land out of Gat No. 525/2 of village Fulambri District Aurangabad. The said suit was decreed by 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad on 03-08-2007 directing the applicant and respondent No.2 - original defendants to hand over possession of suit property to respondent No. 1 within one month and also awarded a sum of Rs.6400/- by way of mesne profit. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 3 applicant and respondent No.2 - original defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.211 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad. The said appeal was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Aurangabad on 19-03-2009. Thereafter, the applicant preferred the Second Appeal No.312 of 2009 in this Court. It was dismissed by this Court on 8th July 2009. 5. Against the order dated 08-07-2009 passed in the Second Appeal No. 312 of 2009 the applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.27908 of 2009. The same was dismissed by the Apex Court by the order dated 20-08-2010. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Review Application No. 195 of 2010 in this Court. As there was delay of 419 days in filing the Review Application, the applicant filed Civil Application No. 13483 of 2010 for condonation of delay. That application was allowed by this Court on 19-10-2010 and now the Revision Application is being heard. 4 6. I heard both the parties at length. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant relied on the following authorities. (1) Narayana Prabhu and others vs. Janardhana Mallan and others [AIR 1974 Kerala 108 (V.61,c.34)]. (2) Revathinnal Balagopala Varma vs. His Highness Shri Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (Since deceased) and others [1993 Supp (1) S.C.C. 233]. (3) M.N. Aryamurthi and another vs. M.L. Subbaraya Setty (dead) by his legal representatives and others [A.I.R. S.C. 1279]. (4) Thamma Venkata Subbamma vs. Thamma Rattamma [1987 DGLS (Soft.) 491]. (5) Dharmarajan & Others vs. Valliammal & Others [2007 DGLS (Soft.) 1263. 5 (6) Kuppala Obul Reddy vs. BOnala Venpata Narayana Ready (Dead) through L.Rs. [MANU/SC/0180/1984]. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 also relied on the following authorities. (1) Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRs. vs. Motilal (Dead) through LRs. [(2009) 14 S.C.C. 663]. (2) Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary [A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 45]. (3) Girijanandji Devi and others vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, [A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1124]. (4) Haridas vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors. [A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1634]. 8. I perused all these authorities. I heard Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for 6 the applicant - original defendant, in support of the various grounds urged in the Review Application. None of the authorities relied upon by the applicant is of any assistance for finding out that the order dated 08-07-2009 dismissing the Second Appeal is vitiated by any apparent error on the face of record and in the absence of such apparent error, review jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Hence the Review Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. 9. In the light of dismissal of the Review Application, nothing survives for consideration in the Civil Application and the same is disposed of accordingly. sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] SUT/OCT10/ra195.10