Bombay High Court
Panditrao Ramrao Deshmukh vs Sopanrao Begaji Nadre And Others on 16 September, 2025
(1) Review Appln-172-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 172 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5083 OF 2023
Panditrao Ramrao Deshmukh
Age: 85 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o. Saraswati Colony, Vasmat,
Tq. Vasmat, Dist. Hingoli. ...APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Sopanrao Begaji Nadre,
Age: 71 years, Occu: Agri.
R/o. Girgaon, tq. Vasmat,
Dist. Hingoli.
2. The Joint Charity Commissioner,
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli. ...RESPONDENTS
Mr. V. D. Salunke, h/f Mr. Mayur V. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. E. P. Sawant a/w Mr. Yash A.
Jadhav and Mr. Avinash Hande for Respondent No.1.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent No.2 and 3-State.
D.A.Ethape
(2) Review Appln-172-2025
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 14th AUGUST 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16 SEPTEMBER 2025.
ORDER :
-
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present applicant has filed this review application seeking
review of the order passed by this Court dated 13th June 2025 in Writ
Petition No.5083 of 2023, whereby the writ petition came to be
dismissed. The parties will be referred to as per their status in the
petition.
3. The facts, in short, are that the petitioner is a member of one Trust
namely, Bahirji Smarak Vidyalaya Shikshan Sanstha Wapti, Tq. Vasmat,
Dist Hingoli. He was elected to the management committee in 2008 for a
period of three years from 2008 till 2011. The said change report was
rejected by order dated 17th December 2015. An appeal filed there-
against also came to be withdrawn. Before the said decision, the election
D.A.Ethape
(3) Review Appln-172-2025
process for the fresh term of 2012 to 2015 had also been initiated. This
was challenged by filing writ petition No.2830 of 2012 in this Court.
The elections were stayed. In the challenge to that order, the Hon'ble
Apex Court directed to conduct the elections and not to declare the
result. The next term also expired. The writ petition is still pending. In
that view, the management committee elected for the term in the year
2005-2008 continued to be on schedule-I and was looking after the
trust. The election was held for the period of 2015-2018. The change
report was filed and same was accepted. Even thereafter, the election
came to be held for the period of 2019-2022. That change report of the
same is pending. In the meantime, there was an amendment of the trust
rules whereby the term of managing committee is extended to five years
and the elections were held for a period of 2021-2026. The said change
report is still pending.
4. In the meantime, there was a dispute wherein the respondent
No.1, elected secretary for a period of 2005 to 2008, came to be
removed in a meeting dated 16th May 2012. It was the case of the
D.A.Ethape
(4) Review Appln-172-2025
respondent No.1 that the committee on 16 th May 2012 was not having
legal existence, and therefore, had no right to pass such a resolution.
Under Section 41A, there was already an order passed by the learned
ACC directing the respondent No.1 to look after the trust. The authority
decided that the respondent No.1 was wrongly removed from the post of
secretary by observing various infirmities in the process of removing the
respondent No.1 and also the legality about the existence of the
committee. It is in that view, the petitioner i.e. present applicant had
filed writ petition.
5. This Court held that when the respondent No.1 was allegedly
removed from the post of secretary, the committee was not a valid
committee having legal recognition and, in that view, the
resolution/order removing respondent No.1 from the post of secretary
was held to be illegal by way of impugned order. When the order was
passed, a request was made to continue interim relief for a period of six
weeks. It appears that the applicant did not approach the Hon'ble Apex
Court and this review application came to be filed.
D.A.Ethape
(5) Review Appln-172-2025
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Salunke vehemently argued that this Court
has committed a mistake in entertaining the writ petition. The order
impugned in the petition was passed in 2012. The petition was filed
after much delay and laches. Though there is no period of limitation
prescribed for filing revision, still the Court has committed an error
apparent on the face of record by entertaining the petition without any
application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, there was no
application for condonation of delay. Since there was delay, a right
accrued in favour of the petitioner. The rivisional authority considering
that the revision was not maintainable for delay and laches. The parties
had not filed revision within a reasonable time. He further submits that
since the respondent No.1 had not filed an appeal before the appellate
authority, it ought to have been considered that the petitioner waived
right to the remedy. This Court has thus committed an error in not
considering that ground. On merits also, he addressed this Court.
However, this Court need not consider the said question as the error
apparent on the face of record is the only to be considered. The
D.A.Ethape
(6) Review Appln-172-2025
argument is only that this Court failed to consider that the revision was
filed beyond the period of limitation without any application for
condonation of delay.
7. The learned Advocate for the Applicant relied upon the judgments
in the cases of Dadasaheb Dattajirao Nimbalkar and Ors. Vs. Ushadevi
Rajaram Nimbalkar and Anr.1, Ragho Singh Vs. Mohan Singh2, Ballumal
A. Jaisingh Vs. M/s. J. J. Builders and Ors.3.
8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sapkal vehemently argued that there
is no error apparent on the face of record in the judgment. While filing
revision before the revisional authority, there is no limitation prescribed
by the law. This point is specifically dealt with by this Court in the
judgment. When there is no limitation prescribed under the Act, there
was no question of filing any application for condonation of delay. He
relied upon the judgment in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.
1 2002 (3) Bom C.R. 590
2 2001 AIR (SCW) 2351
3 2003 BCI 46
D.A.Ethape
(7) Review Appln-172-2025
Narayana Reddy and Ors.4 In support of his contention, the review
application is not maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face
of record.
9. He further submits that there is distinction between an error
apparent on the face of record and erroneous decision. He submits that
even if the decision is erroneous, that is no ground to file review
application. He further submits that all the questions raised before the
Court are considered by the Court in the order and there is no need to
entertain review application.
10. After hearing the parties, this Court has to only see as to whether
any error apparent on the face of record committed by this Court while
passing the order. The main thrust of the petitioner is on the delay in
filing the revision application before the revisional authority. Admittedly,
there is no specific period prescribed for filing revision under Section 70-
A of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act. When there is no specific period
4 (2022) 17 SCC 255
D.A.Ethape
(8) Review Appln-172-2025
prescribed for filing revision application, there is no question of filing
any application for condonation of delay. What Court needs to consider
in such case is only as to whether the revision suffers from delay and
laches from the facts of each case. The authority certainly has the
discretion to condone such delay or laches. The said point was argued
before this Court and is dealt with by this Court.
11. In the case of Dadasaheb Nimbalkar and Ors. (supra), this Court
had considered the provisions of section 22, 70-A and 72 of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act (then Bombay Public Trusts Act), it was
held that when there is delay, there has to be an application. In the said
case, there was delay and the learned Charity Commissioner did not
consider the aspect of delay.
12. In the case of Ragho Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered that when there is delay, there has to be an application for
condonation of delay. Unless such application is made and delay is
condoned, the authority does not get power to consider appeal. That
D.A.Ethape
(9) Review Appln-172-2025
case was under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the case of Ballumal
A. Jaisingh (supra), this Court had considered that there was no
application for condonation of delay. The Court considered that when
there is no application for condonation of delay, there is no question of
learned judge getting jurisdiction to condone the delay without such
application. There is no dispute about this legal position.
13. The judgment in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy (supra) was
relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for respondent. The Hon'ble
Apex Court had considered the powers and scope of review. It is held by
the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is a distinction between the erroneous
decision and error apparent on the face of record. paragraph No.25 of
the said judgment reads as below:
"25. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to
repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at
in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate
power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a
subordinate Court. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. Vs. Shin
Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 501] where it was held thus: Para 11
and 12.
D.A.Ethape
( 10 ) Review Appln-172-2025
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned,
the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that
virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought
at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived.
Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie
which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled
law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate
power which enables a superior court to correct all errors
committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original
matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be
exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only
in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein
had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard
and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect
method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is
in the nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and
unwarranted and cannot be granted."
(emphasis added)"
14. This Court finds that there was no requirement for filing an
application for condonation of delay before the revisional authority. The
said ground thus does not hold any ground. So far as other aspects are
concerned, this Court finds that no error apparent on the face of record,
as such, is pointed out. No case is made out to entertain the review
application. The review application therefore stands dismissed with no
order as to costs.
D.A.Ethape
( 11 ) Review Appln-172-2025
15. With this, review application stands disposed off.
[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.Ethape
