Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to a review application filed by the appellants in First Appeal No. 620 of 1996, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 14th August 2007 passed by the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad. The original suit was Special Civil Suit No. 259 of 1986 (New No. 335 of 1986) filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (original plaintiffs) against the original defendants, including the predecessor of the applicants. The first appeal was decided on 14th August 2007. The applicants, who are the heirs of deceased defendant No. 3 Pandharinath Shelke, filed the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that the judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The court examined the scope of review jurisdiction, noting that it is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The court found that the applicants failed to point out any such error. The review application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The court also disposed of the pending civil applications (CA/2581/2014 and CA/9300/2015) as infructuous.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The court considered whether the judgment under review contained an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and that the applicant must show a patent error. The court found no such error and dismissed the review application. (Paras 1-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Review - Scope - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The court reiterated that the power of review is limited and cannot be used to re-agitate the same issues or to obtain a fresh hearing. The applicant failed to demonstrate any mistake or error apparent on the record. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 14th August 2007 in First Appeal No. 620 of 1996 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 application is dismissed. Pending civil applications (CA/2581/2014 and CA/9300/2015) are disposed of as infructuous. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited
- error apparent on face of record
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- no re-hearing of appeal
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (08) 39
Civil (Review) Application No. 4152 of 2008 in First Appeal No. 620 of 1996 with CA/2581/2014 and CA/9300/2015
Shri S.D. Kulkarni for Applicants, Shri S.S. Choudhary for Respondents No. 1 and 2
Smt. Mathurabai w/o. Pandharinath Shelke, Nitin s/o. Pandharinath Shelke, Miss Yogita d/o. Pandharinath Shelke (minor represented by guardian mother Smt. Mathurabai Shelke)
Suresh s/o. Mohanlal Gordia, Manjula w/o. Suresh Gordia, Bankatlal s/o. Balkishan Karwe, Dnyaneshwar s/o. Sopanrao Shelke, Dilip s/o. Sopanrao Shelke, Geetabai Trimbak Shelke (deceased through L.Rs), Latabai w/o. Subhash Dube, Smt. Sunanda w/o. Balasaheb Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review application against judgment in first appeal arising from a civil suit for property.
Remedy Sought
Review of the judgment and order dated 14th August 2007 passed in First Appeal No. 620 of 1996.
Filing Reason
The applicants alleged that the judgment under review suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed Special Civil Suit No. 259 of 1986 (New No. 335 of 1986) in favor of the plaintiffs. The first appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 14th August 2007.
Issues
Whether the judgment dated 14th August 2007 in First Appeal No. 620 of 1996 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants contended that the judgment under review contains an error apparent on the face of the record.
The respondents opposed the review, arguing that the review application is not maintainable as there is no error apparent.
Ratio Decidendi
The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to re-agitate the same issues. The applicant must demonstrate a patent error, which was not done in this case.
Judgment Excerpts
By filing present application, the appellants in First Appeal No. 620 of 1996 have sought review of the Judgment and Order passed by this Court in the said appeal on 14th August, 2007.
The present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed Special Civil Suit No. 259 of 1986 (New No. 335 of 1986).
Procedural History
The original suit (Special Civil Suit No. 259 of 1986) was decreed by the trial court. The defendants filed First Appeal No. 620 of 1996, which was dismissed by the High Court on 14th August 2007. The appellants then filed the present review application on 2008-??-?? (date not specified). The review was heard and dismissed on 27th August 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1
