← Library
Bombay High CourtRPW/72/2015

Shri. Ashok Kallapa Lambe v. Mr. Prashant Sadashiv Lambe And ORS

2015-07-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.M. Savant.2 pages

RPW-72-15.doc 29.07.2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.72 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3486 OF 2014 Shri. Ashok Kallappa Lambe .. Petitioner

Versus

Mr. Prashant Sadashiv Lambe and others .. Respondents Mr. G. R. Rege i/by Mr. Dilip Bodake, for the Petitioner. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J.

DATE : 29th JULY, 2015 P.C.

The above Review Petition seeks review of the order dated 13.06.2014 passed in the above Writ Petition, by which order the above Writ Petition was dismissed. The above Writ Petition was directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by which order the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer setting aside the Sale Certificate issued in the name of the Petitioner came to be confirmed. The Sale Certificate in favour of the Petitioner came to be set aside on the ground that the Petitioner had applied for issuance of the Sale Certificate as a Power of Attorney of the Lambe family. The Petitioner is the grandson BGP.

RPW-72-15.doc 29.07.2015 of the original tenant Ramchandra Lambe. The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are also the grand children of the said Ramchandra Lambe and the Sub Divisional Officer by his order therefore, directed the names of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to be also included in the Sale Certificate. As indicated above, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. This Court whilst rejecting the above Petition has observed that the Petitioner is seeking the Sale Certificate in his own name, thereby seeking to usurp the property. This Court has further observed that the Petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that the Petitioner had applied in his individual capacity or that he has succeeded to the tenancy.

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner and having perused the grounds on which the Review Petition has been filed, the Petitioner virtually wants to re­argue the Writ Petition which is impermissible. The Review Petition does not make out any ground for review in any of the eventualities mentioned in Order 47 of the CPC. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.

[R.M. SAVANT, J] BGP.