Bombay High Court
Sharda Jayram Bhalerao vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 January, 2022
Bench: A.S. Gadkari, S. G. Mehare
(1)
903 RA 36-20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 REVIEW APPLICATION NO.36 Of 2020
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7612 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12578 OF 2015
SHARDA JAYRAM BHALERAO
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Dananjaya V. Bodhankar, Advocate for Petitioner
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, AGP for Respondents-State
...
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI
AND
S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 04th JANUARY 2022
P.C.:
1. Present review petition is directed against the Judgment dated 21 st
July 2016 passed in Writ Petition No.12578/2015.
Heard learned Advocate for the review petitioner at length and the
learned AGP for Respondent-State
2. The predominant, rather main ground raised for filing of present
review petition is that, after pronouncement of the Judgment dated 21 st
July 2016, the petitioner got some additional material in support of her
case and it has to be considered afresh.
We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel
for the petitioner.
903 RA 36-20
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha
Rani Bank (SMT) and Others reported in (2006)4 SCC 78 in para No.13
has held as under:-
"13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114
of the CPC has to be read, but this section does not even
adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the
court since it merely states that it "may make such order
thereon as it thinks fit." The parameters are prescribed in
Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the
defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or
for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the
rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant,
and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly
incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible.
Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute
because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the
case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully
and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby
enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from
the explanation in Rule 1 of the Order 47 which states
that the fact that the decision on a question of law on
which the judgment of the court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for
the review of such judgment. Where the order in
question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate
and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the
power to review its order with the greatest
circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. v. The Govt. of A.P. held as follows: (SCR P. 186)
"[T]here is a distinction which is real, though
it might not always be capable of exposition,
between a mere erroneous decision and a decision
which could be characterized as vitiated by "error
apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in
903 RA 36-20
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected, but lies only for patent error. ...
where without any elaborate argument one could
point to the error and say here is a substantial point
of law which states one in the face, and there could
reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it,
a clear case of error apparent on the face of the
record would be made out."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of 24 Parganas
& Others V/s. Lalith Mohan Mullick & Others reported in AIR 1988 SC
2121 has held that, a new ground cannot be taken into consideration for
the purposes of the review application, apart from the fact that it would
also involve investigation of new facts.
4. After applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above
decisions to the present case, we are more than satisfied that, no ground
is made out for review of Judgment dated 21-07-2016.
The review petition being devoid of merits is accordingly
dismissed.
5. In view of dismissal of Review Petition itself, Civil Application
No.7612/2021 does not survive and is accordingly disposed off.
(S.G. MEHARE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
sarowar
