Case Note & Summary
The applicants, tenants Shrichand s/o Rochaldas Khemani and Kawarlal s/o Rochaldas Khemani, filed a review application before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking review of the judgment dated 21.10.2010 in Writ Petition No.711/2010. That writ petition, styled under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, had challenged the judgment dated 12.12.2006 of the 2nd Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No.326/2002 and the subsequent judgment and decree dated 9.12.2009 of the Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.24/2007. The respondents, the landlord Abdul Razzak s/o Abdul Ajim (since deceased, through legal representatives), had sought eviction of the tenants on the ground of bona fide need. Both the trial court and the appellate court accepted that need, and the High Court rejected the tenants' writ petition on 21.10.2010. The tenants' counsel had sought eight weeks' time to approach the Supreme Court, which was granted on condition of depositing all monetary amounts as per the impugned judgment and decree. The review application was filed on 15.11.2010. The court observed that the review application merely attempted to place arguments in writing before the court and did not point out any error apparent on the face of the record. The respondents did not file any reply. After hearing the parties, the court dismissed the review application, holding that the review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record and cannot be used for re-argument of the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Record - Review application filed by tenants seeking review of judgment dismissing their writ petition against eviction decree - Court held that the review application merely sought re-argument of merits and did not point out any error apparent on the face of the record - Held that review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review application discloses any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 21.10.2010 in Writ Petition No.711/2010.
Final Decision
Review application dismissed. No error apparent on the face of the record found. The application was merely an attempt to re-argue the merits of the case.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-argument of merits
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
