1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2402 OF 2009 IN REVIEW ST.NO.2797 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.426 OF 2008 Babasaheb s/o Vishwanath Umbre Applicant Versus Ankush s/o Vishwanath Umbre & others Respondents Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Kudale, advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Babhulgaonkar, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2009. P.C.: Heard Shri S.J.Salunke, learned Counsel holding for Shri B.S.Kudale, advocate for applicant and Shri K.M.Babhulgaonkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 48 days occurred in presenting review application. For the reasons stated in the application, application deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Delay of 48 days occurred in presenting review application stands condoned. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/rast279709 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW ST.NO.2797 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.426 OF 2008 Babasaheb s/o Vishwanath Umbre Applicant Versus Ankush s/o Vishwanath Umbre & others Respondents Mr.S.J.Salunke, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Kudale, advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.M.Babhulgaonkar, advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 15 th October, 2009. P.C.: 1 Heard Shri S.J.Salunke, learned Counsel holding for Shri B.S.Kudale, advocate for applicant and Shri K.M.Babhulgaonkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. 2 It is contended by review applicant that there was compromise between defendants inter se and draft compromise was placed on record, however, final order passed by this Court is not in terms of the compromise and appeal has been dismissed without taking into account developments taken place during continuance of the proceedings before Court. 3 When appeal was taken up for consideration, appellant sought time on several occasions for keeping the parties present before Court with a view to verify terms of compromise reached between appellant and 3 Respondents No.2, 3, 4, & 6. However, in spite of granting several chances, appellant did not keep concerned parties present before the Court. As such, terms of compromise could not be verified. The appeal came to be decided considering merits of the controversy involved in the matter. There is no error committed by this Court while disposing of the appeal. There are no grounds raised by review applicant, which call for interference in review jurisdiction. The applicant, if so advised, may agitate the grievance in respect of alleged compromise arrived between the parties even before the executing Court and the executing Court may take decision in accordance with the provisions of law. There is no substance in the review application. 4 Review Application stands dismissed. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/rast279709