1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application No. 230/2009 in S.A.No. 505/2006 Sayyad Hafiz Ali Sayyad Hasan Ali vs. Gajanan s/o Bhagwanji Dharpure. ----------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : A.P.Lavande ,J DATE : 13.03.2009 Heard Mr. Nemade, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By this application, the applicant seeks review of the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by this court dismissing the Second Appeal No. 505/2006. 3. The applicant is the original defendant in the suit filed by the respondent seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit plot. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit plot. The defendant also claimed title to the suit plot by virtue of the sale-deed dated 18.9.1968. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent. The learned lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant. The Second Appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Mr. Nemade, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks review of the order dated 11.10.2006 on the following grounds. 2` i) The plaintiff – respondent had not proved title to the suit plot inasmuch as there was discrepancy in the area of the suit plot. ii) The documents Exhs. 44 and 47 produced by the plaintiff do not prove absolute title of the respondent- plaintiff inasmuch as Exh. 44 discloses that there are several joint owners of the suit property and Exh. 47 discloses that the sale- deed was executed by one of the alleged co-owner Annapurnabai. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submitted that the decree passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and having perused the record, I find no ground to entertain the present application for review. Firstly, in Second Appeal No. 505/06 the only point urged by Mr. Dangre, the learned counsel who was then appearing for the applicant was that the applicant -defendant having denied title of respondent- plaintiff even before filing of the suit, the suit filed by the plaintiff simplicitor for injunction without seeking declaration was not maintainable. No other point was urged in support of the appeal. This is evident from the bare perusal of the order dated 11.10.2006. In view of the above position, the grounds urged by Mr. Nemade in support of the application for review are not available. It is well settled 3` that the review is not an appeal in disguise and the court can exercise review jurisdiction on a very limited grounds. If a point is not urged in support of the second appeal, such a ground cannot be urged in review application. On this ground alone the application is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE patle