Bombay High CourtCAO/1071/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Shri. Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Thr. L.R. Shinde, Joint Secretary And Others v. Smt. Vidya W/O Deepak Deshpande (Dead) Thr. L.R.S. Deepak Bhalchandra Deshpande, Wardha And Others

2017-03-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 cao1071.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO.1071 OF 2016 AND MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.7922 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3143 OF 2006 (Shri Yogiraj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and others ..vs.. Smt. Vidya w/o Deepak Deshpande (dead) through L.Rs. and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.M. Sudame, Advocate for the applicants, Shri Mahesh Rai, Advocate for the non-applicant Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 01-03-2017 By this application, the original respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 (management) seek review of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.3143/2006 on 16-12-2015. According to the applicants, the original petitioner (Smt. Vidya Deepak Deshpande) was gainfully employed and was working in the school administered by Navneet Bahuuddeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Kinkar Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Seloo from 01-11-2007 till 01-10-2009 i.e. till she attained the age of superannuation. To substantiate this submission, the applicants rely on the certificate issued by the Secretary of above referred society and the copy of order issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur on 25-03-2009 approving the appointment of Smt.Vidya Deepak Deshpande. The applicants contend that these

2 cao1071.16 documents were not available with them at the time of hearing of the petition and they got the documents after the judgment is passed by this Court. Except for making a general statement that inspite of exercise of due diligence and proper care and caution the applicants could not obtain the documents in question, there is nothing on record to show that the applicants had infact made attempts in the matter.

In the above facts, I find that there is no error apparent on the face of record which necessitates exercise of review jurisdiction.

The applications are dismissed. No costs.

JUDGE adgokar