Vitthal Dagadu Katakr v. Arun Dagadu Katkar And Others

43-RP(st)-4951-2020.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 4951 OF 2020 Vitthal Dagadu Katkar ...Petitioner

Versus

Shri. Arun Dagadu Katkar And Ors.

...Respondents

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3623 OF 2020 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 4951/2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3351 OF 2020 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 4951/2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3932 OF 2025 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 4951/2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3930 OF 2025 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 4951/2020 Adv. Manoj A. Patil a/w Adv. Shubham R. Dhenge, Adv. Ankita D. mali i/b Adv. Gaurav Nankar, for Applicant/Petitioner. CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 7th MARCH, 2026.

P.C:

1.

Not on Board. Taken on Board.

2.

Heard.

3.

For the reasons stated in the application, Interim Application No.3623 of 2020 is allowed in terms of prayer Clause 'a'. 4.

The applicant seeks review of the order dated 10.01.2014 rendered by this Court in Second Appeal No.53 of 2014. 5.

Having considered the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for applicant, I have perused the order under review. ZIP

43-RP(st)-4951-2020.doc 6.

It is well settled law that review petition has very limited scope and party seeking review cannot canvas the original proceeding as like the appeal before the Court, as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India (AIR2000 SC 1650).

7.

It is further well settled position of law that the scope of review jurisdiction is limited only to correct the error leading to manifest injustice, as has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Mohammad Abdul Karim [(2024)6 SCC 461].

8.

The learned counsel for applicant has attempted to reagitate and re-argue the ground mentioned in the second appeal. As stated hereinabove, it is trite that it is not open for any party to re-agitate the grounds those are already raised and considered while deciding the original proceeding.

9.

In view of aforestated circumstances, review petition stands dismissed.

10.

In view of disposal of the review petition, pending interim applications stand disposed of.

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] ZIP