IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 910 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11756 OF 2025 IN RAST/15211/2025 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) (STAMP) NO. 15211 OF 2025 Kondabai Bapurao Deshmukh And Others VERSUS Mandodari Punjaram Deshmukh And Others ... Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Milind Madhu Joshi None Present for Respondent. … CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 23, 2026 ORAL ORDER : CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11756 OF 2025 : 1. There is a delay of 36 days in filing the application for review. Learned Advocate for the applicant states that the respondents are served by private notice as also through Speed Post. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) (STAMP) NO. 15211 OF 2025 : 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant states that the execution proceeding is posted on 24/09/2026 and makes a request that the application for review be taken up for consideration. Page 1 of 5 2026:BHC-AUG:43390 910 CA 11756-2025 4. Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the suit for partition filed by respondent No.1 was hopelessly barred by limitation. In support of his contention, he draws attention to the observations made by the learned Trial Court in paragraph 27 of the judgment, which refer to implementation of the consolidation scheme. 5. The learned Advocate submits that it is a matter of record that the consolidation scheme was implemented in the year 1989 and that the suit properties bearing Gut Nos.265 and 268 were recorded in the name of defendant No.1 alone. According to the learned Advocate for the applicant, this would amount to ouster of the plaintiff and, as such, would be the starting point of limitation. 6. Perusal of the judgment dated 28/02/2025 passed by this Court dismissing Second Appeal No.53 of 2024 indicates that the contention with respect to the suit for partition being barred by limitation was rejected on the ground that, in the written statement, except for the statement that defendant No.1 had perfected his title by adverse possession, there were no averments regarding the mode and manner in which the possession of defendant No.1 had become adverse or hostile to the original plaintiff. Page 2 of 5 910 CA 11756-2025 7. The learned Advocate for the applicant has not pointed out any averment from the written statement regarding ouster of the plaintiff. As regards the contention with respect to the consolidation proceedings, there is no material on record to infer knowledge of the plaintiff with respect to the said proceedings. It is well settled that the mere fact of the name of defendant being recorded in the revenue records does not amount to ouster or possession of the defendant becoming adverse to that of the plaintiff. 8. The other contention raised by the learned Advocate for the applicant is that the suit properties were not inherited by defendant No.1, as held by both the learned Courts. The contention is that the suit property was held by the grandfather of defendant No.1, namely, Jija, as a Government lessee and that the name of defendant No.1 was recorded in the revenue records as a lessee since the grandfather had transferred the leasehold rights in favour of defendant No.1 during his lifetime and during the lifetime of Sahebrao (father of the plaintiff and grandfather of defendant No.1). 9. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate draws attention to the observations made by the learned Trial Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment, which refers to Khasra Pahani extract at Exhibit 72, according to which Survey No.66 was recorded in the name of Trimbak, father of defendant No.1, as pattadar (lessee) by Page 3 of 5 910 CA 11756-2025 way of partition. Reference is also made to Exhibit 73, which is another Khasra Pahani extract, which reveals the name of Trimbak, father of defendant No.1, as pattadar (lessee) and the name of Jija, grandfather of the plaintiff, as pattadar of the lessee. 10. The learned Advocate contends that, in view of the above, the learned Courts ought to have held that the properties were received by defendant No.1 by way of inheritance, since Jija had transferred the property to the father of defendant No.1 during his lifetime and during the lifetime of Sahebrao, father of the plaintiff and grandfather of defendant No.1. 11. The said contention cannot be accepted. The contention is raised for the first time in review. Perusal of paragraph 6 of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court would reveal that it was the case of defendant No.1 that the suit properties were inherited by Trimbak from distant relatives and not from his father or grandfather. 12. It also appears from a reading of the judgments of all three Courts that such a contention was never raised. This is also not the case set up by the review petitioners in their written statement. It is well settled that evidence without pleadings of no avail. Page 4 of 5 910 CA 11756-2025 13. A new case cannot be invented or made out for the first time in an application for review, particularly when it is contrary to the express case set up and pursued till the stage of second appeal. 14. In view of the above, no case for review of the judgment dated 28/02/2025 passed in Second Appeal No.53 of 2024 is made out. The application for review is rejected. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 5 of 5