Anshu Rameshchandra Dhuria vs Mr. Narayanbhai Patel
2023 Latest Caselaw 2101 Bom

                       (10)-RPC-1-23.doc.


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          Digitally
          signed by
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2023.03.04
          14:26:59
          +0530                         REVIEW PETITION NO.1 OF 2023
                                                      IN
                                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO.387 OF 2019
                                                      IN
                                 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.414 OF 2022

                       Anshu Rameshchandra Dhuriya                           ..Petitioner

                       IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

                       Gulabi Devi Rameshchandra Dhuriya & Anr.              ..Applicants
                            Versus
                       Narayan B. Patel                                      ..Respondent

                       Mr. Rameshkumar R. Tiwari, for the Petitioner.
                       None for the Respondent.

                                                    CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 2nd MARCH, 2023

P.C.

1. The review is sought of the order dated 10th August, 2022 passed in Civil Application No.387 of 2019, wherein prayer of the applicant seeking stay to the judgment dated 20 th March, 2017 passed in Appeal No.135 of 2010 was made subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- by the lower Appellate Court.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid order warrants reconsideration as the Appellate Court has no power to

BGP. 1 of 2 (10)-RPC-1-23.doc.

direct the payment of cost.

3. Apart from the fact that above contention was never canvassed at the time of passing order under review, opportunity was granted to the applicant to deposit cost in view of submissions made before this court. That being so, no error could be noticed in the order impugned which warrants exercise of review jurisdiction.

4. The Review Petition as such stands rejected.

                                         [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                       2 of 2