7. Per contra , Mr.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raises an objection as to the maintainability of the review petition itself. He submits that the review is sought on the ground of discovery of new and important evidence which could not be produced at the time when the order dated 8th January, 2014 was passed. He submits that the second Special Civil Suit No.1251 of 2009 was filed in the month of July, 2009 i.e. after the dismissal of the RCS No.70 of 2002 by the Trial Court. He submits that in the said proceedings, the Review Petitioner has filed written statement on 9th November, 2009. He submits that in the written statement, the defendant has admitted that the properties are partitioned in the year 1980 itself and that Gat No.245 was given to the share of Sambhaji Argade from whom the Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property. He further submits that having filed his written statement, the defendant was well aware of the filing of the suit and thus it could not be said that the same was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed. He would further point out that an application was made by the Respondent herein on 15th April, 2014 seeking deletion of his name for the reason that his signature was obtained in the subsequent suit by misrepresentation. He submits that the said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court and thus, he had abandoned the suit which was thereafter dismissed for want of taking steps for filing of evidence. He submits that this order was passed on 12th June, 2018 and till today, there is no challenge to the said order. He relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Janaradan Pandurang Lipane and Ors. vs. Sadhu Davji Lipane and Ors., [2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 1129].
