1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MCA NO. 515 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 321 OF 1995 (Namdeorao Anandrao Deshmukh & Ors. vs. Smt. Parvatabai Shankarrao Deshmukh & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 21, 2009. Heard Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for the applicant Shashikalabai and Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for original appellants No. 1 & 2. By placing reliance upon xerox copy (Annexure 1A) of Consent Deed dated 9.8.2004, Shri Kaptan, learned counsel wants to show that 60R land out of Survey No. 29/2 then admeasuring 2 H 40R was to be given to Shashikalabai and balance was to be retained by the appellants. He states that while drafting compromise, some mischief has been played and the lady Shashikalabai has been deprived of that portion and has instead been paid compensation by showing that part of Survey No. 29/2 originally admeasuring 3.30 H was acquired. He further states that on the relevant date when compromise was recorded, as he could not be traced, Shashikala engaged another advocate and depended upon the services rendered by other 2 advocate for recording of compromise. He argues that while recording the compromise, this Court has not verified the contents from parties and hence the order dated 14.2.2005 needs to be reviewed and as compromise is not acceptable to Shashikalabai, appeal needs to be restored back for its adjudication on merits. He states that original of Annexure -1A (consent deed) is with the appellants. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel, on the other hand, states that original is not with the appellants and it is with Shashikalabai. He further contends that this Court has verified the compromise after noticing presence of respective advocates and he himself appeared for the appellant, Shri Gawande for Shashikalabai and Respondent – Bajirao Nagorao Deshmukh was present in person. It is also mentioned that Bajirao was identified by Shashikalabai. He contends that thus the grievance being made, raises a disputed question of fact and no case in view of compromise as recorded, can be entertained by this Court. Shri Gawande, learned counsel, who is present in the Court supports the argument of Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel. After hearing learned counsel and perusal of the order dated 14.2.2005, I find that the 3 compromise was verified by this Court and the parties were identified by their respective advocates and Bajirao was identified by Shashikalabai. When the original compromise deed itself is not coming on record, the contentions raised by Shri Kaptan, learned counsel by placing reliance upon xerox copy dated 9.8.2004 cannot be accepted. The said xerox copy demonstrates that the agreement or consent deed was obtained by Shashikalabai and therefore in normal circumstances, the original has to be with her only. In these circumstances, I find that no case is being made out warranting any recall or review of the order dated 14.2.2005. Misc. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE *GS.