( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1212 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 1651 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 156 OF 1991 Sau. Sumanbai Pralhad Firke and another. APPLICANTS VERSUS Shri Shaikh Gaffar Sk. Bismilla Manyar and others. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1211 OF 2009 WITH REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 1655 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 156 OF 1991 Shri Hemantkumar Sudhakar Patil APPLICANT VERSUS Shri Shaikh Gaffar Sk. Bismilla Manyar and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. M.M. Bhokarikar, advocate for the applicants in all applications. Mr. V.B. Patil, advocate for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st August, 2009] ( 2 ) PER COURT : 1. These are applications for condonation of delay and review of the judgement rendered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 156/1991. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The delay in filing of the review application is condoned in the interest of justice, for the reasons stated in the application in as much as the delay appears to be unintentional and the same is explained to the satisfaction of this Court. 4. So far as the merits of the review applications are concerned, learned advocate for the review petitioners would submit that the question of limitation available is not duly considered. He submits that the amendment was carried out during pendency of the suit and, therefore, from date of the amendment, the period could be counted. He submits that in view of section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, the benefits derived by the ( 3 ) plaintiff ought to have been restored to the review petitioners/defendants because he is a bonafide purchaser of the land in question. The learned advocate further submits that the mother of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff was competent to alienate the property and that the view taken by this Court is not in keeping with settled principle of law. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners has referred to a large number of case-law in support of his contention that when there is error apparent on the face of record, the decision may be reviewed. He contended that the judgement rendered by this Court should be reviewed in view of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in “Moran Mar Basselios Chatholicos and another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others” (AIR 1954 S.C. 526), “Pandit Dhana Mali v. Bhimabai (D) through L.Rs.” in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 7849-7850/2005 and “Mohd. Sultan Zargar v. Custodian General E.P. and others” (AIR 1960 Jammu & Kashmir 125”. He also referred to ”The Selection Committee for Admission to the Medical and Dental College, Bangalore v. M.P. ( 4 ) Nagaraj” (AIR 1972 MYSORE 44). A Division Bench of Mysore High Court held that ignorance of decision of the Supreme Court, which is binding on all Courts, would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, which was rendered contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. So also, he referred to observations in “Y. Venkannachoudhary v. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Hyderabad District and others” (AIR 1981 Andhra Pradesh 232). A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that where important provision of law was not brought to the notice of the Court, during course of hearing of the appeal by mistake of counsel, the review would be maintainable. 5. I have gone through the review petition. The text and tenor of the review petition would indicate that it is drafted like an appeal. This Court has taken a view that mother of a Mahomedan minor has no power to dispose of immovable property of the minor. It is important to note that the learned senior counsel who had argued the second appeal on behalf of the review ( 5 ) petitioner has not come forward with a plea that certain important legal aspects were not canvased and were not brought to the notice of this Court. The legal effect of Article 8 of the Indian Limitation Act has been taken into consideration because the respondent No. 1 was minor at the time of alleged sale effected by the mother as his guardian. It is important to notice that by virtue of decree in Special Civil Suit No. 3/1956, the original plaintiff was allotted a specific share and became owner thereof. His separate immovable property could not be alienated by mother as a guardian. This view, particularly, in the context of the provisions of the Mahomedan Law, is not shown to be against any judgement of the Apex Court in the similar fact situation. 6. In “Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another v. N. Raju Reddiar and another” (1997) 9 SCC 736, the Apex Court held that practice of filing repeated review petition and clarification petition by changing of advocates is not proper. In “Sri Dokka Samuel v. Dr. ( 6 ) Jacob Lazarus Chelly” 1997 (4) Supreme 643, the Apex Court dealt with the scope of review application. In the given case, the suit for declaration and possession of open plots was decreed. The appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed. In the second appeal, the decree was confirmed. However, in pursuance to the review application, the learned Single Judge re-heard the matter and reversed the decree of appellate Court, holding that the relevant precedents were not cited. The Apex Court observed : “The omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior judgement saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, since the counsel has committed an error in not bringing to the notice of the Court the relevant precedents.” 7. It is well settled that the review petition cannot be treated like an appeal. By way of filing review petition, life cannot be resurrected in the decided matter unless the parameters of section 114 and Order-XLVII Rule-1 of the Civil Procedure Code can be ( 7 ) applied to a given fact situation. In this view of the matter, the present review petitions are liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the review petitions are dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the review applications, civil application No. 1215/2009, civil application No. 1214/2009 (both filed in review application Stamp No. 1655/2009) and civil application No. 1213/2009 and 1592/2009 (both filed in review application Stamp No. 1651/2009) do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CA1212-09-RAST1651-09-CA1211-09-RAST1655-09