Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Public Interest Litigation Regarding Charitable Hospitals — No Error Apparent on Record Found. Review petition dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 150
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case is a review petition filed by Shri Seva Medical Foundation and its trustees against the judgment in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 3132 of 2004. The original PIL concerned the regulation of charitable hospitals in Maharashtra. The review petitioners alleged that the earlier judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record. The respondents included the original petitioner Sanjiv Gajanan Punalekar, the State of Maharashtra, and several hospitals. The High Court examined the review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court noted that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue the case. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any error or mistake in the earlier judgment. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, 1908 - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The review petitioner sought review of a judgment in a PIL concerning charitable hospitals, alleging errors in the earlier decision. The Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and that the petitioner failed to point out any mistake or error apparent on the record. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit. (Paras 1-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason to review the earlier judgment in the PIL.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
  • not re-argument of the case
  • Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
  • 1908
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (06) 27

Review Petition (Lodging) No. 67 of 2010 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 3132 of 2004

0000-00-00

Shri Seva Medical Foundation & Ors.

Shri Sanjiv Gajanan Punalekar & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review petition against a judgment in a Public Interest Litigation concerning charitable hospitals.

Remedy Sought

Review of the judgment in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 3132 of 2004.

Filing Reason

Alleged errors apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgment.

Previous Decisions

Judgment in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 3132 of 2004 was passed, which the review petitioners seek to review.

Issues

Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason to review the earlier judgment.

Submissions/Arguments

The review petitioners argued that the earlier judgment contained errors apparent on the face of the record. The respondents opposed the review, stating that no error was shown.

Ratio Decidendi

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case. The petitioner failed to establish any such error.

Judgment Excerpts

The review petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

Procedural History

The original PIL was filed as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 3132 of 2004. After judgment, the review petitioners filed Review Petition (Lodging) No. 67 of 2010 seeking review of that judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLVII Rule 1, Order XXVII Rule 4
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Enhances Compensation for Injured Driver in Motor Accident Case — Future Prospects and Conventional Heads Added. Notional Income Assessed at Rs.3000 Per Month for Self-Employed Driver Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Quashing of State Transport Appellate Tribunal Order Granting Stage Carriage Permit Under Motor Vehicles Act. Tribunal Ignored Relevant Residential Qualification of Respondent While Applying Marking System, Constitu...