Mr. Kanti Lal Jain And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra And ANR

RPCST26542_15.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.26542 OF 2015 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICAITON NO.127 OF 2015 Kanti Lal Jain and another ...

Petitioners Vs.

State of Maharashtra and another ...

Respondents Mr. Sandeep Jalan for Petitioners.

Mr. Ketan Joshi i/b. Mr. S. A. Sawant for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE :

DECEMBER 16, 2015 P.C. :

Heard Mr. Jalan, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.

2.

This Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 27.07.2015 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Application No.127 of 2015.

3.

Mr. Jalan submitted that the grounds set out in paragraphs 8(a) to (d) make out a case for reviewing the order dated 27.07.2015. 4.

In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, AIR 2013 SC 3301, the Apex Court has considered the scope of review and has observed thus, "The jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an appeal in 1/2

RPCST26542_15.sxw disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. "

5.

In view thereof and after perusing the grounds set out in paragraphs 8(a) to (d), I do not find that any case is made out for reviewing the order dated 27.07.2015. If at all, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2015, they have appropriate remedy of challenging the said order before higher forum. Hence, Petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 2/2