The Bombay High Court dismissed the review petition filed by Mr. Mahesh K. Mehta, seeking to recall or modify the court's previous order dated February 20, 2024. The court had initially dismissed Mr. Mehta's writ petition against the Bharatiya Friend’s Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., which had prevented him from receiving paying guests in his flat. The review was sought on the grounds that similar issues were already under litigation in other forums, and that no writ could lie against a co-operative housing society, a private entity. The Supreme Court had also declined to interfere in the High Court's decision. The review petition was dismissed due to the lack of new evidence or errors in the previous judgment, and the finality of the decision.

1. Background of the Case

Mr. Mahesh K. Mehta, a 74-year-old resident of Churchgate, Mumbai, filed a review petition against a judgment by the Bombay High Court. The original writ petition had been dismissed on the grounds that the issues raised were already pending before various forums and that no writ petition could be filed against a housing co-operative society.

2. Previous Court Rulings

The original writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on February 20, 2024. Mr. Mehta appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which also dismissed his appeal, upholding the High Court's ruling. The Supreme Court noted that the issues could be addressed in the ongoing proceedings in other forums.

3. Grounds for Review Petition

Mr. Mehta sought a review of the High Court's decision, arguing that the court's judgment was erroneous and required modification. He cited delays in filing due to ongoing proceedings in other courts and referenced a Supreme Court decision to support the maintainability of his review petition.

4. Respondent's Argument

The Bharatiya Friend’s Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. opposed the review petition, arguing that the original order had attained finality with the Supreme Court's dismissal of Mr. Mehta's appeal. They contended that there was no error in the February 2024 order that would justify a review.

5. Court's Analysis

The Bombay High Court reviewed the petition and found no merit in Mr. Mehta's arguments. The court emphasized that the issues had already been adjudicated and that there was no apparent error in the original judgment. The court also noted that the Supreme Court's order had confirmed the High Court's decision, making it final.

6. Conclusion

The review petition, along with the accompanying interim application, was dismissed by the High Court. The court held that there was no justification for reconsidering its previous decision, which had already been upheld by the Supreme Court.