Sanjivani Gramin Shikshan Society ... vs Sachin Rambhau Wagh And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 2040 Bom

Bombay High Court

Sanjivani Gramin Shikshan Society ... vs Sachin Rambhau Wagh And Another on 23 January, 2024

                                    1                    911- R.A. 288-23.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

           REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. 288 OF 2023
              IN WRIT PETITION NO. 11062 OF 2021
                              WITH
               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2024

     SANJIVANI GRAMIN SHIKSHAN SOCIETY SAHAJANANDNAGAR
       POST SHINGNAPUR THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

                          VERSUS
              SACHIN RAMBHAU WAGH AND ANOTHER

                                    ....
Advocate for the Applicants : Senior Advocate Mr. V.D.Hon i/by Ashwin
                                V. Hon.
            Advocat for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinod Patil
                                  .......

                               CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 23.01.2024

PER COURT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners and

learned Advocate for respondent No.1.

2. This is a review application filed by the original petitioners in

Writ Petition No. 11062 of 2021. The learned counsel for the

applicants would submit that the grounds were raised before this

Court in the above Writ Petition that respondent No.1 is not its

employee. The appeal of respondent No.1 was beyond the prescribed

period of limitation. There was no privity of contract of service

2 911- R.A. 288-23.odt

between the applicants and respondent No.1. This Court did not

consider the documentary evidence on record produced by the

applicants, such as pay sheets and other material documents, to

substantiate that the contractor had engaged the respondent No.1.

This Court did not consider the relevant factors to decide the employer

and employee relations. He would also argue that this Court did not

consider the rejoinder. In sum and substance, his arguments are that

the grounds which were raised before this Court in Writ Petition No.

11062 of 2021 have not been considered. Hence, the order of this

Court dated 06.10.2023 may be reviewed.

3. The discovery of new and important matters or evidence which,

after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or

could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed,

or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent of the

face of the record or any other sufficient reason, are the ground for

review of the order or the judgment.

4. Another requirement for review is something must have been done.

There should be findings on a point in the judgment or order which is

sought to be reviewed. However, the learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that the points that were raised were not 3 911- R.A. 288-23.odt

considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.10.2023.

Considering the scope of review, this Court is of the view that if the

Court does not consider the grounds raised, the review is not the

remedy. The other legal remedy is available. There is no material

before the Court to examine the prima facie mistake/error on the face

of the record. In the situation the review petition is not maintainable.

Hence, the civil application stands dismissed.

5. Civil Application No. 1021 of 2024 stands disposed of.

( S. G. MEHARE ) JUDGE

ysk