Bombay High Court
Sadashiv Balshiram Neharkar vs Hanumant Baburao Neharkar And Ors on 6 May, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2024:BHC-AS:20979
Neeta Sawant 32-RPW-16-2024.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 16 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11287 OF 2018
Sadashiv Balshiram Neharkar } ..Applicant/
Orig. Respondent No.5.
: Versus :
Hanman Baburao Neharkar and Ors. } ..Respondents/
Orig. Petitioners
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7969 OF 2024
IN
REVIEW PETITION NO. 16 OF 2024
Sadashiv Balshiram Neharkar } ..Applicant
In the matter Between :
Shri. Hanumant Baburao Neharkar
and Ors. } ...Orig. Petitioners
: Versus :
State of Maharashtra and Ors. } ..Respondents
___________________________________________________
Mr. P.B. Shah i/by. Ms. Mallika R. Pujari, for the Applicant.
Mr. U.B. Nighot a/w. Ms. Sulajja R. Patil , for the Respondents.
Mrs. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for State.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 6 May 2024.
_____Page No. 1 of 3____
6 May 2024
Neeta Sawant 32-RPW-16-2024.docx
P.C. :
1) This petition is fled seeking review of the Judgment and Order
dated 22 December 2023 passed by this Court.
2) I have heard Mr.Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the
Review Petitioner.
3) The sheet anchor of the Review Petitioner for seeking review of
the Order dated 22 December 2023 is alleged statement of Baburao Baban
Neharkar recorded on 18 January 1988, under which said Baburao had
allegedly released his rights in respect of the alternate land to be allotted in
lieu of acquisition of the joint family property.
4) When the petition was argued, it was sought to be contended
that Baburao had refused to pay the purchase price for alternate land. Infact
this was the fnding recorded by the learned Minister. Today altogether new
theory is sought to be invented by relying upon alleged statement of 18
January 1988 wherein Baburao had sought to release his rights in respect of
the alternate land. The said statement dated 18 January 1988 was not placed
before me when the order under review was passed. Based on material
produced before this Court, a view has been taken. Production of new
material cannot be a ground for review. In any case the stand now sought to
be taken by the Review Petitioner appears to be contradictory to the stand
taken before the learned Minister and before this Court. In my view, there is
no error apparent on the face of the record in the order under review. No
_____Page No. 2 of 3____
6 May 2024
Neeta Sawant 32-RPW-16-2024.docx
ground is made out for review of the order. The Review Petition is
dismissed.
5) With dismissal of the Review Petition itself, Interim Application
taken out for amendment does not survive. The same also stands disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
_____Page No. 3 of 3____
6 May 2024
