Shri. Anant Govind Tamhankar(Since Deceased)Through His Legal And Representatives Milind Anant Tamh v. Smt. Shilpa Ashok Nayak And ORS

910-RPF9-17.DOC Shephali

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 9 OF 2017 IN FIRST APEPAL NO. 1860 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 249 OF 2017 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 9 OF 2017 Anant Govind Tamhankar (since deceased) through LRs

...Petitioners

Versus

Shilpa Ashok Nayak & Ors

...Respondents

Mr Kunal M Damle, for the Petitioners.

Mr H Toor, with Mrs Swati Sawant, i/b SK Legal Associates, for Respondent No. 1.

Mrs Sayli Apte, i/b PG Lad, for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

7th December 2017 PC:- 1.

The petition seeks a review of my order dated 23rd June 2017 disposing of both First Appeals. I have heard Mr Damle for the Petitioners and carefully considered the submissions in the Review Petition. It is at once clear that what is sought is not a review at all, 7th December 2017

910-RPF9-17.DOC for no error apparent on the face on record is pointed out. What is in fact sought is a fully-fledged rehearing of the First Appeals, on grounds already taken, considered and decided. The fact that the decision is not to a party's liking, taste or convenience is not a ground of review. Nothing in this petition is within the frame of Section 114 or Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 2.

In paragraphs 5 to 9 of the order in question, I considered the necessary averment in the plaint that affected the question of jurisdiction and also the submission that prayer clause (a) in the suit was for a declaration against MHADA. The Review Petition proceeds on the basis that my decision in regard to that prayer clause (a) of the declaration against MHADA is incorrect. That is not a ground for review.

3.

The Review Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(G. S. PATEL, J) 7th December 2017