Bhanudas Raghunath Save vs Rohinton Homi Taraporwalla And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 279 Bom

                 Dusane                             1/3   14 IAst 92990.20 in rpwst 92989 in sa 145.94.doc


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Bhalchandra                     INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 92990 OF 2020
G. Dusane
                                                    IN
Digitally signed by
Bhalchandra G.
Dusane
                                  REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 92989 OF 2020
Date: 2021.01.07
14:44:54 +0530                                      IN
                                      SECOND APPEAL NO. 145 OF 1994


                      Prabhakar Pandurang Jadhav & Ors.           ....        Applicants

                           Vs.
                      Rohinton Homi Tarapurwala & Anr.            ....        Respondents

                                                alongwith
                                  REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 93806 OF 2020
                                                    IN
                                      SECOND APPEAL NO. 146 OF 1994

                      Bhanudas Save                               ....        Applicant

                           Vs.
                      Rohinton Homi Tarapurwala & Anr.            ....        Respondents



                      Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Sameer Tendulkar for
                      Applicants in IA / Original Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in SA.

                      Mr. Rajesh Shah for Respondent in IA

                                             Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

Date : 6th JANUARY, 2021 P.C.:

1. Shri. Damle, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

applicants submits that Review Petition (Stamp) No. 93806 of 2020 in Dusane 2/3 14 IAst 92990.20 in rpwst 92989 in sa 145.94.doc

Second Appeal No. 146 of 1994 be tagged with the present matter and

heard together.

2. By consent, both these Review Petitions are heard together

as jointly prayed.

3. Both these applications for review are taken out by the

review applicants/original Respondents to the Second Appeals. The

Second Appeals came to be allowed against the applicants/original

petitioners vide judgment pronounced on 19th August, 2020.

4. Amongst other, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Damle

appearing for the applicants - review petitioners would urge that there

was personal difficulty of the Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to

the Second Appeals, which is specifically narrated in the application

because of which he remained absent during the course of the hearing

of the Second Appeals. According to him, same has caused prejudice to

the Respondents as proper opportunity of hearing could not be availed.

The further submissions are on the merits of the matter viz. the

acceptance of the report of the T.I.L.R. and also the oral agreement. Dusane 3/3 14 IAst 92990.20 in rpwst 92989 in sa 145.94.doc

5. The prayer for grant of review is opposed by the learned

counsel for the Non-Applicant

6. Considering the difficulties cited by the learned counsel for

Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, I have heard learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the Applicants/original Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 so as to find out as

to whether any error of law in deciding the Second Appeals can be

noticed. With the assistance of learned Senior Counsel, I have also

gone through the evidence on record particularly that of Taluka

Inspector of Land Records, the provisions of Section 92 of the Evidence

Act.

7. In my opinion, the view expressed by this Court in the

judgment under review is based on the legal provisions and

interpretation of the evidence. This Court in review jurisdiction cannot

sit in an appeal and re-appreciate the evidence.

8. In the aforesaid background, in my opinion, no case for

review is made out. The application as such stands rejected.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )