Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1088 OF 2008 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2007 Smt. Haushabai Tulsiram Gawali & anr. ..Applicants V/s. Ramchandra Dhondiram Shelke & anr. ..Respondents Mr. Niranjan Shimpi, Advocate for the Applicants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd October, 2008 : 3rd October, 2008 : 3rd October, 2008 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the appellants. The argument of the appellants that ‘C’ copy of the original map ought to have been produced on record will have to be stated to be rejected. In the first place, that contention cannot be entertained for the first time in Review Petition. Besides, in my opinion, this submission clearly overlooks that ‘C’ copy of the original map was produced by the plaintiff which has been proved in evidence. In addition, the concerned surveyor was also examined as witness. Relying on that evidence the Courts below have answered the fact in issue against the appellants. In the circumstances there is no substance in this submission. 2. Counsel for the appellants would then contend that the Courts below have not considered the issue of 2 limitation. Indeed it is the duty of the Court to examine the issue of limitation on its own even if not raised by the party. However, no such grievance was made before me when the second appeal was argued and decided on its own merits. That grievance cannot be entertained for the first time in Review Petition. I am not examining the aspect as to whether foundation for agitating ground of limitation has been laid by the appellants. 3. Counsel for the Appellant lastly contends that the discrepancy between the Survey Nos. has not been noticed by the Courts below. Once again no such grievance was made before the Court below. To get over this position, Counsel for the appellant contends that plea is specifically taken in the written-statement. However, the appellants neither insisted for framing issue in that behalf nor agitated that question of fact before First Appellate Court or for that matter in the hearing of the second appeal. 4. In the circumstances, no case for review is made out. Rejected. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]