BHARAT NARHARI PATIL Vs. ADINATH SAKHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present review petition has been filed by respondent No.3 in Second Appeal for review of certain observations in the order passed by this Court on 2/4/2019 in Second Appeal No.649 of 2014. It will not be out of place to mention here that the said appeal was filed by the original defendant No.8-present respondent No.1 challenging the Judgment and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.200/1990 filed by the respondent No.1 therein i.e. present respondent No.2 for partition and separate possession. The decree was passed by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. The said decree was challenged by original defendant No.8 in Regular Civil Appeal No.186/2004 (old R.C.A. No.10/2004) before learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Majalgaon, so also, the decree was challenged by original defendant No.1 by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.96/2004 (old R.C.A. No.3/2001). Both the appeals came to be dismissed by a common Judgment on 8/2/2007. The Second Appeal, which was filed by original defendant No.8 was disposed of without admitting, by this Court on 2/4/2019, as it was not raising any substantial question of law. It will not be out of place to mention here that the present review petitioner was represented by Advocate in the Second Appeal and he was heard in the Second Appeal.

(2.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. V.D. Salunke for the review petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. G.V. Mohekar for the respondent No.1, learned Advocate Mr. B.S. Kudale for the respondent No.2, learned Advocate Mr. B.A. Shinde for the respondent No.3, learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Thombre for respondent Nos.7-A to 7-D, learned Advocate Mr. M.B. Karande for respondent No.8-A and learned Advocate Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar for respondent No.8-B.

(3.) It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the review petitioner that in para No.8 of the order passed by this Court, this Court, this Court has observed that, "at the time of execution of the Judgment and Decree, if possible, the property sold to the present appellant can be put to the share of defendant No.2 and this observation may be considered by the executing Court/executing authority." is the portion, by which the review petitioner is aggrieved. According to the review petitioner, he was not properly represented and his defence was not at all considered. It is stated that it was not brought to the notice of any Court that the review petitioner has not sold any land to respondent No.1 in this application. According to the review petitioner, the sale deed, which is shown by the respondent No.1, was never legal, but it was obtained by fraud. According to the review petitioner, he had taken hand loan of Rs.15,000.00 from respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had taken signatures of the review petitioner on some documents. Review petitioner is unable to read and write properly, and therefore, by taking disadvantage of his situation the respondent No.1 had grabbed his land. According to him, he was not represented properly even before the Courts below and his defence has not been considered properly. According to the learned Advocate representing the review petitioner, above said observation, in para No.8 by this Court, are pre-judicial to the interest of the review petitioner. In fact, it should have been held that the respondent No.2 has no right in the suit land. The partition should be made equally, that is, by metes and bound. If at all that decree is to be executed and now only the portion, which has been allegedly sold, cannot be put to the share of the review petitioner. Learned Advocate for the review petitioner also submitted that by expunging that para the matter be remanded for its proper adjudication.