IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 10 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 483 OF 2009 SHRI. AGOSTINHO DA COSTA AND ANR., ... Applicants Versus SHRI. ANTONIO SANTANA FERNANDES AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Vivek Rodrigues, Advocate for the Applicants. Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 8th June, 2010 ORDER: Heard. 2. This is an application for review, to review the order dated 9/10/2009 of this Court by which a Writ Petition filed by the defendants against the order dated 18/07/2009 was not entertained by the Court. 3. It appears that defendant no.2/DW1 was under cross-examination and while under cross-examination, a certified copy of the sale deed dated 25/06/2004 was shown to him and he admitted the execution thereof. Subsequently, according to the defendants a wrong plan was annexed to the said sale deed which plan ought to have been annexed to another sale deed executed on the same day in favour of one Mahendrekar. 4. The defendants filed an application seeking leave to produce the said sale deed. The same came to be rejected. A Writ Petition filed against the order of rejection was not entertained by this Court for reasons stated in paras 8 & 9. In para 8 it was stated that the sole issue was whether the plaintiff was dispossessed within 6 months prior to the date of suit, or otherwise than in the course of law and in the trial, the title was not an issue. In para 9 it was observed that it was not the case of the defendants that at the time of tendering the copy and the original there was a dispute about the identity of the property and for that purpose production of document was necessary. Learned Single Judge also observed that nothing precludes the defendants from showing from the said admitted document that there are certain discrepancies in the document which was produced on confronting it to the defendants' witness and call in question its worth. 5. Learned Counsel on behalf of the review applicants submits that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the said observation in para 9 in that the discrepancy could be proved otherwise then by production of the document. 6. Mrs. Agni, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants, relying on Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited V/s. Sunil Bansal & Ors. (2009 (10) SCC 446) submits that an error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence and it must be an error which is manifest on the face of the record. Mrs. Agni has also placed reliance on State of Wast Bengal & Ors. V/s. Kamal Sengupta & Anr. (2008 (8) SCC 612) and has submitted that the term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. 7. In my view, there is no error apparent in the order of this Court dated 9/10/2009. The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering that the issue was only of prior possession and that title was not involved nor identity of the property has declined to entertain the Writ Petition in his discretionary jurisdiction. There is no error either in the observations of para 10 as well which needs correction in review jurisdiction. The submissions made tantamount to rehearing of the Writ Petition which on facts of the case was not entertained. 8. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that opportunity be given to the defendants to summon the sub-registrar to prove that the same deed dated 25/06/2004 had indeed a wrong plan attached. They may do so in case it is permissible in law. Consequently, I find there is no merit in this review application and the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH