1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application [Review] No. 1463 of 2009 IN Second Appeal No. 392 of 2002 [decided] [Sheela Ramesh Gupta Vs. Bhagirathi R. Gudhade & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.L. Khapre, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, Adv., for respondents. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 06th April, 2010. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. R.L. Khapre for the applicant and learned Adv. Mr. J.J. Chandurkar for the respondents. 2. The ground pressed in service is that since the defendant nos. 6 and 7 ere themselves purchasers in violation of law, equity in their favour ought not to have been considered by the First Appellate Court, and the same was wrongly approved by this Court. 3. The contention is based on a submission that those defendants were purchasers without permission under the Tenancy Act. 4. Learned District Judge has already 2 considered this aspect, and noted that permission in favour of respondent no.6 was in existence. 5. In the background aforesaid, the point agitated by the applicant is not involved in the matter. 6. Review application does not show any error apparent on the face of record, nor it is argued during oral submissions. 7. Application has no merit, and is rejected. Judge |Hedau|