Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to Civil Application No. 1168 of 2015 filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia and the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Rawanwadi, seeking condonation of delay in filing a review application (Misc. Civil Application St. No. 6997 of 2015) against the judgment and order dated 27th January 2015 passed by the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4184 of 2014. The original petitioner, Ishwardas Rambhau Nipane, had filed the writ petition challenging the invalidation of his caste claim by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The High Court had allowed the writ petition and directed the Zilla Parishad to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages. The applicants (original respondents) sought to review that judgment. The court first heard the application for condonation of delay and, finding sufficient cause, condoned the delay. However, upon hearing the review application on merits, the court observed that the review was sought on the ground that the judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The court noted that the applicants were essentially seeking a reappreciation of evidence and a rehearing of the matter, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. The court held that review lies only for an error apparent on the record and not for a fresh hearing or reappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the court dismissed the review application as not maintainable. The contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 129 of 2015) filed by the original petitioner was also disposed of as not pressed, given the dismissal of the review application.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Delay in filing review application condoned as sufficient cause shown - Court allowed the application for condonation of delay (Para 3). B) Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Review lies only for error apparent on the face of the record, not for reappreciation of evidence or rehearing - The review application sought to reargue the case, which is not permissible - Review dismissed as not maintainable (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review application is maintainable against the judgment dated 27th January 2015 in Writ Petition No. 4184 of 2014, and whether the delay in filing the review should be condoned.
Final Decision
Delay condoned. Review application dismissed as not maintainable. Contempt petition disposed of as not pressed.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on record
- Not maintainable for reappreciation of evidence
- Limitation for review
