Case Note & Summary
The present Review Petition was filed by the original petitioners (Nayana Sudhir Shah, Samkit Sudhir Shah, and Shraddha Sudhir Shah) seeking review of a judgment dated 19th May 2020 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 7982 of 2018. The original writ petition had challenged an order of the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in favor of the respondent No.1 (Sudhir Premji Shah), the senior citizen father. The judgment under review had dismissed the writ petition, relying inter alia on the decision of a learned Single Judge in Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane & Ors. (Writ Petition No.10611 of 2018 dated 26th June 2018) which dealt with Sections 4 and 23 of the Senior Citizens Act. The petitioners contended that after the judgment was reserved on 27th September 2019 and pronounced on 19th May 2020, another learned Single Judge of this Court (S.C. Gupte, J.) in Ranjana Rajkumar Makharia v. Mayadevi Subhkaran Makharia (Writ Petition (L) No.3509 of 2019 dated 24th February 2020) expressed a different view on the interpretation of Section 23 of the Act. The petitioners argued that this subsequent decision cast doubt on the correctness of the judgment under review and constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The court heard Mr. Vivek Kantawala for the petitioners, Mr. Shashank Thatte for respondent No.1, and Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The court observed that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise and that the mere existence of a conflicting decision does not amount to an error apparent on the record. The court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error or mistake in the judgment under review, nor did they point to any new and important evidence that was not within their knowledge. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The petitioners sought review of a judgment dismissing their writ petition under the Senior Citizens Act, arguing that the court relied on a decision that was subsequently doubted by another Single Judge. The court held that a review is not an appeal and that the alleged conflict of decisions does not constitute an error apparent on the record. The review petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Senior Citizens Act - Maintenance - Sections 4 and 23 - The judgment under review had upheld the Tribunal's order directing the petitioners to vacate the premises in favor of the senior citizen father. The review petition did not raise any new ground or error apparent. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 19th May 2020 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Review Petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on face of record
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act
- 2007
- Sections 4 and 23
