← Library
Bombay High CourtRPW/58/2024disposed off

Dhondiram Sambhaji Gaikwad And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Chief Secretary, Revenue And Forest Dept. And ORS

2024-05-07Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Gauri Godse2 pages

Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2024.05.09 14:43:58 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU 49-rpw-58-2024-ia-8479-2024.doc varsha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 58 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8479 OF 2024 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 58 OF 2024 Dhondiram Sambhaji Gaikwad and Anr ... Petitioners/Applicants vs.

The State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and Ors ... Respondents Mr. Machhindra A. Patil, for Petitioners/Applicants. Mr. Atharva Date h/f. Mr. Shubham H. Misar for Respondent. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 7th MAY 2024 P.C. :- 1.

This review petition is filed seeking review and recall of the order dated 19th March 2024. By the said order, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 2.

Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that in the review petition he has given sufficient reasons for the delay in filing Page no. 1 of 2

49-rpw-58-2024-ia-8479-2024.doc Writ Petition. Hence, according to him the grounds raised in the review petition explaining delay is itself sufficient ground to review the order.

3.

I have perused the review petition. The grounds raised in the review petition claimed to have been stated for explaining delay were not a part of the pleadings in the petition. Learned counsel for the review petitioners however, submits that since the grounds raised now explain the reason for delay, in view of Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code, it is a sufficient ground to review the order.

4.

I have perused the review application. The ground raised in the review application amounts improvising the case of the petitioners in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the said ground was never part of the original pleadings.

5.

There is no error apparent on the face of the record pointed out for reviewing the order. The review petition is therefore devoid of any merits and hence, review petition is dismissed. 6.

In view of the disposal of the review petition, Interim Application No. 8479 of 2024 is disposed of as infructuous. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2