N.A. Britto, J.

Heard learned senior counsels S/Shri S.D. Lotlikar and J.E. Coelho Pereira on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff and respondents/defendants, respectively. By virtue of application dated 14th June, 2004, the plaintiff seeks to review the judgment/order of this Court dated 5th May, 2004.

2. Before the hearing, the plaintiff had submitted a plan which was already at page 81 for reconsideration of the defendants and which has not been acceptable to them.

3. Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that this Court could not have accepted one proposal given by one party without the consent of the other. Mr. Lotlikar, learned senior counsel has also submitted that there is no satisfaction recorded that shares which had been allotted are equal in value. It is also the submission of Mr. Lotlikar that there is no mention by this Court regarding the area which as per plan at page 36 was kept for road widening or the area which was kept for access.

4. On the other hand. Mr. J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record to give cause to the plaintiff to seek revi