Ranjana Vinod Kejriwal vs Vinod Babulal Kejriwal Since ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3531 Bom

                    KVM

                                                        1/5
                                                                        32 - RPMST 3041 OF 2020.doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Kanchan   Digitally signed
          by Kanchan V.              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
V.        Mayekar

Mayekar
          Date: 2021.02.25
          18:24:37 +0530          REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 3041 OF 2020
                                                  IN
                                   FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2005

                    Ranjana Vinod Kejriwal                              ..... Petitioner
                             Versus
                    Vinod Babulal Kejriwal                              ..... Respondent

                    Ms. Ranjana V. Kejriwal, Petitioner present in person.
                    Ms.Swati Sagvekar for the Respondent.
                                               CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
                                                      V. G.BISHT, JJ.

DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C. :-

By this review petition, the applicant seeks recall of the order

dated 13th August, 2009 passed by this Court thereby dismissing the

Family Court Appeal No. 8 of 2005 filed by the appellant.

2. The review petitioner has stated in the review petition that

against the said judgment dated 13th August, 2009, in the Family Court

Appeal filed by her dismissing the said Family Court Appeal, she

approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition

filed by the applicant was rejected. The applicant thereafter filed a

review petition for seeking recall of the order dated 13 th August, 2009. KVM

32 - RPMST 3041 OF 2020.doc

The said review petition also came to be dismissed by this Court.

Special Leave Petition filed by the applicant against the said order is

dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. This review petition is filed by the applicant on the ground that

in the criminal proceedings filed by the then Metropolitan Magistrate

against the applicant in C.C.NO.260/SW/2003, against the offence

punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, the review

petitioner has been acquitted of the offences punishable under section

193 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. We have gone through the order passed by the learned

Metropolitan Magistrate thereby acquitting the review petitioner of the

charge punishable under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The review petitioner does not dispute that one review petition

filed by her against the said order dated 13th August, 2009 passed by

this Court dismissing her Family Court Appeal has been already

dismissed. Special Leave Petition filed by her is also dismissed.

6. The review petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of

Supreme Court in case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. KVM

32 - RPMST 3041 OF 2020.doc

vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. And others, AIR 1994 SC 853,

judgment of Supreme Court in case of Manjula & Ors. vs.

Shyamsundar & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6744 of 2013 dated 27 th

January, 2021, judgment of Madras High Court in case of R.Sarala vs.

Chandrasekar & Ors. in Review Application No.11 of 2010 in

A.S.No.1040 of 2004 dated 3rd January, 2012 in support of the

submission that in view of the new facts, the second review petition

would be maintainable.

7. Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Manjula &

Ors. (supra) relied upon by the review petitioner is concerned, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in that matter has rendered a finding that the

High Court without examination of any of the aspects save for the

medical evidence had dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order. The

High Court has not adverted to any of the contentions of the parties.

The High Court has not appreciated the oral evidence adduced by the

parties. With these facts at hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed

the said order thereby remanding the matter back to the High Court for

fresh disposal. The said judgment was not considering the power of

the Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Insofar as the judgment of Supreme Court in case of KVM

32 - RPMST 3041 OF 2020.doc

S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. (supra) relied upon by the

review petitioner is concerned, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing

something by taking unfair advantage of another and vitiates

everything. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment. All the

allegations of fraud have been gone into by various Courts in the

proceedings filed by the parties and have been rejected. The review

petitioner has not been successful in any of the proceedings filed by

her. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. (supra) would not assist the

case of the review petitioner.

9. Insofar as the judgment of Madras High Court in case of

R.Sarala (supra) relied upon by the review petitioner is concerned, the

facts before the Madras High Court were totally different. In this case

the review petition initially filed by the review petitioner has been

already dismissed by this Court followed by the dismissal of the

Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant. The judgment of the

Madras High Court thus would not advance the case of the review

petitioner.

KVM

32 - RPMST 3041 OF 2020.doc

10. In our view the second review petition against the order passed

by the review petitioner is not maintainable. Review petition is

accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

      [V.G.BISHT, J.]                       [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]