Swati Sahil Rathod v. Anutai Bhopidas Rathod And 3 Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION APPP NO.5/2026 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION APL NO.1436/2022 Swati Sahil Rathod ..vs..

Anutai Bhopidas Rathod and ors ............................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................... Applicant/Complainant In-Person.

Shri M.A.Kadukar, APP for the State.

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NANDESH S.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 27/03/2026 1.

Heard.

2.

By this application, the applicant/complainant is seeking recalling of order dated 27.11.2025 passed in Criminal Application APL No.1436/2022 by this court, on the ground that this court relied upon WhatsApp Chats and alleged admission and evidence adduced in Family Court made during cross examination in matrimonial dispute, which amount to consideration of defence evidence, which is impermissible at this stage while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, which amounts to denial of natural justice.

3.

She has further contended that this court has also not considered the decision in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab and anr, reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 923 as well as has not taken into consideration that full-fledged trial after recording witnesses is required.

4.

Perusal of the judgment reveals that the submissions made by applicants as well as non-applicant No.2 are considered .....2/-

in detail. Thereafter, in view of provisions and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and ors vs. State of Telangana and anr, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 and the decision in the case of Nitin Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab and anr supra, while considering the application, no error apparent is appearing in the judgment. Therefore, even, we are not inclined to issue notice also.

5.

The law regarding review is well settled.

6.

In Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995)1 SCC 1780 it was held as under:

"It is well settled law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order XLVII, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:

"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to be exercise of the power of review. The power of review .....3/-

may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit. That would be in the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of error committed by the Subordinate Court.

A perusal of the Order XLVII, Rule 1 show that review of a judgment or an order could be sought : (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason.

Thus, an application for review would lie inter alia when the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. The power of review can also be exercised by the Court on the discovery of .....4/-

new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order is passed on account of some mistake. It is well settled that reviewing Court is not an appellate court over its own order. Thus, the powers of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statutes. The term 'mistake' or 'error' apparent is discussed by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others vs.

Kamal Sengupta and another [(2008)8 SCC 612] [LQ/SC/2008/1329] and observed that the term `mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not selfevident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law."

.....5/-

7.

In view of the settled law, no case is made to show that there is any error while passing the judgment. 8.

In view of that, the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

Application stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 06/04/2026 11:31:43 ...../-