Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s MRB Roadconst. Pvt. Ltd., filed a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an order dated 10th June 2015 passed in Writ Petition No.6778 of 2014. The background of the matter is that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, which was pending. The High Court, by order dated 21st July 2014, had granted time to the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in the DRAT until further orders. Subsequently, on 10th June 2015, when the writ petition was heard, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Court perused the earlier order and, in view of the pending appeal, extended the time granted by the DRAT for a further period of four weeks with a direction that if the amount was not deposited within that time, the appeal before the DRAT would stand dismissed. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly. The petitioner then filed the present review petition, arguing that the order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court, after hearing the parties, found that no error apparent was shown and that the review petition was merely an attempt to re-argue the case. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The petitioner sought review of an order dismissing the writ petition for non-compliance with a conditional order to deposit Rs.20,00,000/-. The Court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the review petition was merely an attempt to re-argue the case. The review was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 10th June 2015 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.6778 of 2014 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Review Petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-argument of the case
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
Case Details
Review Petition No.78 of 2015 in Writ Petition No.6778 of 2014
V.M. Kanade, B.P. Colabawalla
Mr M.K. Shah for the Petitioner, Mr Pratap Patil for the Respondent Bank
M/s MRB Roadconst. Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review Petition against an order disposing of a Writ Petition in a debt recovery matter.
Remedy Sought
Review of the order dated 10th June 2015 passed in Writ Petition No.6778 of 2014.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the order suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Previous Decisions
The High Court on 21st July 2014 granted time to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- in DRAT. On 10th June 2015, the Court extended time by four weeks with a condition that failure to deposit would result in dismissal of the appeal before DRAT.
Issues
Whether the order dated 10th June 2015 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the order was passed without hearing them and that there was an error apparent on record. The respondent bank opposed the review, stating no error was shown.
Ratio Decidendi
A review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is maintainable only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any such error, and the review was merely an attempt to re-argue the case.
Judgment Excerpts
This Review Petition seeks review of the order dated 10th June, 2015 passed by us in the above Writ Petition.
We had perused the order passed by this Court on 21st July, 2014 when this Court had granted time to the Petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short, the 'DRAT'), Mumbai until further orders.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner appeared before us and submitted that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6778 of 2014 which was disposed of on 10th June 2015. The petitioner then filed Review Petition No.78 of 2015 seeking review of that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1
