Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Umesh Narsing Jadhav, filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking review of the judgment dated 24.3.2006 in Writ Petition No. 2833 of 2005. The writ petition had challenged the order of the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which rejected the petitioner's caste claim as 'Rajput Bhamta'. The Scrutiny Committee had relied on a Vigilance Cell report unfavorable to the petitioner and issued notices to him to prove his claim. After considering the material, the Committee rejected the claim. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench (Rebello and Britto, JJ) on the ground that the petitioner's caste claim was not duly supported. In the review petition, the petitioner urged various grounds, but the main ground pressed was that the directions in Madhuri Patil's case (AIR 1995 SC 94) were not followed by the Scrutiny Committee and the Court. The review bench (D.S. Zoting and A.H. Joshi, JJ) examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and held that review is not an appeal in disguise. The court found that the petitioner failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment in the writ petition was based on a factual appreciation of the evidence, and no fresh evidence or legal error was shown. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Review petition against dismissal of writ petition challenging caste scrutiny committee's order - Petitioner claimed non-compliance with Madhuri Patil's case directions - Court held that review is not an appeal and no error apparent on record was shown - Held that the review petition was devoid of merits and dismissed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2833 of 2005 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Final Decision
Review petition dismissed as devoid of merits.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction limited to error apparent on record
- Caste Scrutiny Committee's decision based on Vigilance Cell report
- No fresh evidence in review
