← Library
Bombay High CourtCAO/108/2017

Mrs. Manisha P. Chhadva W/O Late Shri Pravinchandra Chhadva v. Smt. Khairunissa Sadruddin Bilawala

2017-09-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar2 pages

1 19 CAO 108-17 in RPst 6400-17.doc Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 108 OF 2017 in R.P.C. (St.) No. 6400 of 2017 in CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 772 OF 2013 Ms.Manisha, widow of late Shri Pravinchandra Chhadva .. Applicant / Petitioner Vs Ms.Khairunissa Sadruddin Bilawala. .. Respondent Mr.M.S.Udeshi i/b Mr.Pushkar Patankar, for the Applicant /Petitioner.

Mr.Prasad Dani a/w Mr.Jayesh Vyas, for the Respondent. CORAM : N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Date : September 22, 2017.

P.C. :

The Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay in the Review Petition taken up to review the order dated 22 December 2016.

2.

The learned counsel for the Applicant sought to urge various points in respect of the order under review, which are enumerated in the memo of the Review Petition. As the order dated 22 December 2016 would indicate that the matter was argued

2 19 CAO 108-17 in RPst 6400-17.doc extensively by the earlier Advocate and after considering the arguments the Civil Revision Application was disposed of by a detailed order. The scope of Civil Revision Application itself is very limited and considering the parameters of revisional jurisdiction the matter was dealt with. Having gone through the memo of the Review, I do not find that the case for review of an order is made out. What is sought is re-hearing of the case.

3.

It is noted that after the matters are fully argued and disposed of, litigants are attempting to re-argue the matter by changing the advocates. Such practice has been deprecated by the Apex Court. This Court is already hard pressed for time to give hearing at the first instance and if such re-argument is sought it will be impossible to devote judicial time for meritorious matters. 4.

After the Revision was disposed of adequate time was granted to the Applicant to take the challenge further. It is not that the Applicant is remedy-less and can always challenge the order under review. No purpose will be served by condoning the delay in the Review Petition, which is without any merit. The Review Petition and the Civil Application are disposed of. N.M.JAMDAR, J.