*1* rpw.131.11.wp.6355.97.901.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.131 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6355 OF 1997 Bayaji Sambhu Mali @ Borate (Since deceased) Through L.Rs.. ..Review Petitioner ­versus­ Nazir Mohammad Balal Zari and others. ..Respondents ............ Mr.V.S.Talkute, for the Review Petitioner. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 23rd December, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mr.Talkute, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners. 2 This Review Petition stated to be filed under section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeks review of the judgment and order dated 05/08.08.2011 in Writ Petition No. 6355/1997. The Review Petitioner is the original Writ Petitioner before this Court. He had filed the said Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 09.01.1997. 3 The argument of Mr.Talkute is that the order on the Writ Petition is vitiated by error apparent on the face of record. The error apparent is that this Court has not taken into account the judgment which was passed by the Special Deputy Collector in Tenancy Appeal No. 148/1967. That would indicate, according to Mr.Talkute, that the *2* rpw.131.11.wp.6355.97.901.sxw Landlord has applied for relief possession of the land. Once he had so applied, but was not granted the reliefs, then, there is no question of the Tenant complying with the requirement under section 32F(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short “BTAL Act”). It is his submission that the judgment annexed to the Review Petition at Annexure C and prior thereto the statement at Annexure B were part of the Writ Petition, but have not been taken into consideration by this Court while delivering the judgment and order on the subject Writ Petition. That judgment and order of the Appellate Authority in Tenancy Appeal No. 148/1967, if had been noticed, the conclusion of this Court would have been otherwise, therefore, this Court should entertain this Review Petition and set aside the judgment in the Writ Petition and rehear the Writ Petition on merits and in accordance with law. 4 It is not possible to accept the contentions of Mr.Talkute inasmuch as the review jurisdiction is not akin to an Appeal or Revision. Once that jurisdiction is distinct and restricted, so also, limited, then, in the garb of review, this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority. It is not as if the error that is being pointed out by Mr.Talkute is patent on reading of the order or that the same is apparent on the face of record. If the argument of Mr.Talkute is to be accepted that would require this Court to peruse the entire record and to find out, whether, the judgment in Tenancy Appeal No.148/1967 was infact rendered and what is its impact on the proceedings. That apart, while delivering my judgment in the subject Writ Petition, I have considered this aspect and rendered a finding of fact that the Petitioner could not establish that the Landlord had filed the proceedings under section 31(3) r/w 29 of the BTAL Act. Once I have rendered a factual finding that there is doubt about initiation of that *3* rpw.131.11.wp.6355.97.901.sxw proceedings by the Landlord, then, to now correct the same would require detailed inquiry which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. I have rendered a finding that there is no record of Landlord having initiated such proceedings and if that record itself is found to be unavailable, then, exercise requested by Mr.Talkute is only permissible in appeal and not otherwise. 5 In the light of the fact that the review petition is not maintainable, there is no alternative but to reject the same. 6 Reliance placed by Mr.Talkute on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v/s Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar reported in (2006)7 SCC 200, is once again to demonstrate that the finding recorded by me in the Writ Petition and my conclusion is erroneous. If that is so, it is for the higher court to correct the same in the Appellate Jurisdiction. Certainly, a review petition is not the remedy of the original writ petitioner and it is devoid of any merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 7 At this stage, Mr.Talkute submits that this Court while dismissing the Writ Petition had continued the interim order for a period of two months from the date of the judgment in the subject Writ Petition, namely, dated 05/08.08.2011 and within that period the review petition has been preferred. Now that review petition has been dismissed, the interim order passed in the Writ Petition may be extended to enable the Petitioner to challenge both orders in the higher court. 8 The Respondent (Nazir Mohammad) is not present as no *4* rpw.131.11.wp.6355.97.901.sxw notice on the review petition was issued. Ordinarily, the request of Mr.Talkute, therefore, cannot be considered. However, since the Review Petition was preferred and it was pending in this Court, interest of justice would be served if the interim order passed in the Writ Petition is continued for a period of four weeks from today, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)