Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two Civil Review Applications (No. 6669/2006 and No. 6716/2006) filed by Anil s/o Bajirao Badgujar against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents, seeking review of the common judgment dated 13-12-2005 passed by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 3893/2005 and Writ Petition No. 3881/2005. The original writ petitions had challenged the cancellation of the petitioner's registration with the Employment Exchange, Jalgaon. The High Court had dismissed those writ petitions. In the review applications, the petitioner contended that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the original judgment. The court, after hearing the parties, examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case or to obtain a fresh decision on the same facts. The court found that the petitioner had merely re-agitated the same grounds that were already considered and rejected in the original judgment. No error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out. Consequently, both review applications were dismissed as devoid of merit. The court also noted that the review applications were filed after a considerable delay, but the main ground for dismissal was the lack of any error apparent on record.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Record - Scope of Review - Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case or to obtain a fresh decision on the same facts - The court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the original judgment - Held that review applications were devoid of merit and dismissed (Paras 1-4). B) Employment Exchange - Registration - Cancellation - The original writ petitions challenged cancellation of registration of the petitioner with the Employment Exchange - The court had earlier dismissed the writ petitions - In review, the petitioner sought to re-agitate the same grounds - Held that no case for review was made out (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review applications disclose any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 13-12-2005 in Writ Petition No. 3893/2005 and Writ Petition No. 3881/2005.
Final Decision
Both Civil Review Applications (No. 6669/2006 and No. 6716/2006) are dismissed as devoid of merit.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on record
- Scope of review
- Not an appeal
- Change of view not ground for review
