Rajaram Bandu Gadade v. Govina Sonba Gadade Deceased

27-SA-147-2011.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 OF 2025 rrpillai IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2011 Shri Rajaram Bandu Gadade ...

Petitioners (since deceased) through LRS and Others Vs.

Shri Govind Sonba Gadade ...

Respondents (since deceased) through LRS and Others Mr. P. B. Shah a/w. Ms. Gunjan Shah for the Petitioners. Mr. Sharad Bhosale i/b. Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Respondents. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE :

24th MARCH 2025 ORDER :

1.

The grounds raised in the review petition are all grounds of appeal. However, learned counsel for the review petitioners points out that in paragraph 5 of the judgment this court has incorrectly recorded that Dashrath expired on 9th October 1945. A perusal of the judgment indicates that paragraph 5 of the judgment records the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In the review petition there is no such grievance made that submissions on behalf of the appellants are incorrectly recorded. It is not stated by the review petitioners that no such submission was made on behalf of the appellants. by RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI Date:

2025.03.25 22:29:49 +0200 RAJESHWARI RAMESH PILLAI 1/2

27-SA-147-2011.docx 2.

Learned counsel for the review petitioners further submits that there are errors in the judgment referring to the date of death of Dashrath.

3.

Learned counsel for the review petitioners is unable to point out what is the error apparent on the face of record in the judgment. All the grounds raised in the petition pertain to the grounds of appeal which cannot be considered in the review petition. The review petition is therefore dismissed.

4.

At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners make a grievance that sufficient opportunity is not given to convince this court that there is error apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners is insisting on seeing the notes of evidence to point out his grievance about the date of death of Dashrath. I find this grievance unreasonable and unfair. The scope of review is limited and a party cannot be permitted to argue review petition as an appeal. 5.

Hence, I do not see any substance in the grievance made on behalf of the petitioner.

[GAURI GODSE, J.] 2/2