Union Of India Defence Estate Officer, Bombay Circle, Bombay v. Smt. Shalin Raje Bhosle (Deceased) Through Lrs. Sargram Singh Rajaramsingh Bhosle And Others
1 / 3 CAO-284.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 284 OF 2019 IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) (STAMP) NO. 23671 OF 2018 Union of India vs.
Smt. Shalini Raje Bhosle and others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'
s orders Court'
s or Judge'
s Orders.
or directions and Registrar'
s orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Saurabh A. Chaudhari, Advocate for applicant. CORAM :
MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 10/08/2022 CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 284 OF 2019 This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the accompanying review application. The reasons for delay have been stated in paragraphs 6 to 9. It is thereafter stated that the applicant has a strong case on merits in the review application.
2.
Although the reasons stated in the above paragraphs in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be taken to be demonstrating sufficient cause for condonation of
2 / 3 CAO-284.2019 delay, but this Court is of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be appropriate to condone delay, so that review application can be considered on merits.
3.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay is condoned.
M.C.A. (REVIEW) NO. OF 2018 The learned counsel for the review applicant seeks leave to correct an inadvertent mistake made in the prayer clause. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2.
This Court has heard Mr.S.A.Chaudhari, learned counsel for the applicant at length.
3.
A perusal of the grounds for review stated in the application and the nature of contentions raised on behalf of the applicant demonstrates that the contentions sought to be raised are more in the nature of re-arguing the appeal that was disposed of by this Court along with the cross objection on 28/02/2018. This Court is unable to appreciate any error apparent on the face of record in order to exercise review jurisdiction.
3 / 3 CAO-284.2019 4.
In view of the above, it is found that there is no merit in the present review application. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
JUDGE CHANDRAKANT KOLHE 16:59