Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Taterao s/o Mahadu Bagul, an Additional Collector in Nandurbar, filed a review application (Stamp No.22202 of 2016) before the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad seeking review of the judgment and order dated 13.04.2016 in Writ Petition No.4103 of 2016, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The applicant had originally filed Original Application No.2 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, seeking directions against the State of Maharashtra (respondent no.1) to consider and decide on merits his claim for correction of his date of birth. The Tribunal dismissed the original application. The applicant then filed Writ Petition No.4103 of 2016 before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The review application was filed on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dismissing the writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the applicant's counsel and the Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents, examined the scope of review jurisdiction. The Court noted that review is not an appeal in disguise and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the applicant had not pointed out any such error in the judgment sought to be reviewed. Consequently, the review application was dismissed. The Court also noted that the review application was filed after a considerable delay, but the main ground for dismissal was the lack of any error apparent on the face of the record.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Review Petition - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The applicant sought review of dismissal of his writ petition which challenged non-consideration of his claim for correction of date of birth. The Court held that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. No such error was found, hence review dismissed. (Paras 1-3) B) Service Law - Correction of Date of Birth - Claim for Correction - The applicant had filed Original Application No.2 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal seeking directions to consider his claim for correction of date of birth. The Tribunal dismissed the application, and the subsequent writ petition was also dismissed. The review application was filed against the dismissal of the writ petition. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and order dated 13.04.2016 in Writ Petition No.4103 of 2016 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Final Decision
Review Application [Stamp] No.22202 of 2016 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-appreciation of evidence
- Review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise
- Scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
