Mahdav @ Mahadeo Panditrao Patil ... vs Venkatrao Santram Kolpuke
2022 Latest Caselaw 13135 Bom

                                                                 2-ra-30-2022.odt



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO.30 OF 2022
                         IN SA/440/2021
                WITH CA/11372/2021 IN SA/440/2021

               VENKATRAO SANTRAM KOLPUKE
                         VERSUS
     MAHDAV ALIAS MAHADEO PANDITRAO PATIL AND OTHERS

                                     ...
                Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Manale Satish S.
               AGP for Respondent No.1 and 3 : Mr. D. Y. Bhide
                                     ...

                CORAM           :   SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

                DATE            :   DECEMBER 16, 2022.


ORDER :-


.      Heard learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Manale for the applicant and

learned Advocate Mr. D. Y. Bhide for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

2. This Court by order dated 25.10.2021 admitted the second

appeal by giving reasons. Now, the learned Advocate for the review

applicant submits that some of the substantial questions of law, which

have been framed by this Court, are not arising, especially question

No.1, 3 to 5. According to him, only question No.2 may arise, but for

that purpose also the judgment of the frst Appellate Court is

elaborate.

3. It is to be noted that the review is maintainable when there is

error apparent on the face of the record. As regards the second

2-ra-30-2022.odt

appeal is concerned when this Court fnds that there are substantial

questions of law as contemplated under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, those questions are required to be formulated and

the appeal is required to be admitted. Even if an issue has been

decided by the Courts below, yet there can be a substantial question

of law when it relates to either question of law purely or it is a mixed

question of law and fact. Taking into consideration the reasons stated,

it cannot be considered that there is any error apparent on the face of

the record while formulating substantial questions of law.

4. As regards the statement in paragraph No.10 of the order is

concerned, it is stated that there is a wrong statement. Learned

Advocate for the respondent had not stated that as on today, there is

no execution proceeding taken up by him. May be its a mistaken fact

and therefore, those observations or statement required to be deleted

or ignored. However, it is to be noted that no stay was granted by

this Court, rather it was stated that liberty was granted to the

applicants to move the Courts, if steps would be taken by the

respondent - plaintif for the execution of the decree. That sentence

require no change. Under such circumstance, the sentence in

paragraph No.10 of the order dated 25.10.2021 i.e. "However, it has

been stated by the learned Advocate for the respondent that as on

today there is no execution proceeding taken up by him", be

considered as deleted.

2-ra-30-2022.odt

5. The review application stands dismissed.

6. Pending civil application stands disposed of.

[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE

scm