* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 12 OF 2008 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 117 OF 2008 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.174 OF 2008 Damayanti Hariram .....Petitioner/Applicant V/s. 1.Vasant Govindji Kotak & Ors. .....Respondents. AND 1.Mr.Nalin Dwarknath Modi ....Respondents AND Jagdish H. Chandan & Ors. ....Petitioners/Applicants. ========= Mr.P.S.Dani, advocate for applicant. Ms.Armin Wandrewalla with Mr.Dhaval Kenia i/by.M/s.Law Charter, Advocate for respondents. CORAM :SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 9TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard both the counsels. 2. This petition is filed seeking review of order dated 30th September, 2008 passed on Civil Application No.117 of 2008, in the above Civil Revision Application. 3. The petitioners had filed Civil Application No.117 of * 2 * 2008 for bringing themselves on record as the heirs of deceased revision applicant. By the order under review, the application was rejected with the observations that since the suit filed by the respondents was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and for action against the wrongful and forcible dispossession, the cause of action thereunder was personally against the revision applicant. It was decreed personally against her and the revision application to challenge the decree does not survive on her death. The note was also taken of the fact that the revision applicant had been occupying the premises as an agent of the Court Receiver. On her death the agency came to an end. 4. Mr.Dani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in as much as, the legal position on the issue involved in the application, i.e. survival of cause of action on the death of the revision applicant had not been pointed out to the court. The said legal position is elaborated at paras 9 to 13 of the petition. Mr.Dani has cited few decisions of the Apex Court our High Court and Rajasthan High Court in support of the legal positions which according to him were not pointed out to the court during the arguments on the Civil Application. * 3 * 5. Ms. Wandrewalla, the learned counsel for the respondent has strongly urged that the Review Petition as filed is not maintainable. She submits that the petitioners, under the garb of review petition are actually seeking re- hearing of Civil Application No.117 of 2008. They are requesting the court to take a view different from that taken by the order on review by going through another process of hearing. This is not permissible within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 C.P.C. 6. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent needs to be dealt with before taking up the exercise of considering merits of the review petition. Because, that exercise will be conducted only if the review application is maintainable. Otherwise, the petitioners need to carry the matter to the higher forum. 7. In order to substantiate her contention, Ms.Wandrewala relies upon decision of the Apex Court in Parison Devi and Ors. V/s.Sumitri Devi and Ors reported in (1997) 8 SCC page 715. The decision is on an appeal by special leave preferred against an order passed by High Court in exercise of the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. By the order impugned, earlier decision of the High Court that the execution application was covered by Article 181 of the Jammu * 4 * and Kashmir Limitation Act and hence not barred by time was reviewed and it was held that the execution application was covered by Article 182 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act and barred by time. It was contended before the Apex Court that the impugned order had treated the review petition as if it was an an appeal and hence had transgressed the powers of review available to the court under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. The Apex Court after referring some of its earlier decisions, observed as follows : “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” . It further observed that there is a clear distinction between “erroneous decision” and an “error apparent on the face of the record”. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter can only be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. 8. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Lily Thomas etc. V/s.Union of India & Ors.reported in AIR 2000 * 5 * Supreme Court page 1650. It was held that, the dictionary meaning of the word “review” is the “act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. 9. In the instant case, no such error apparent on the face of the record or grave error has been contended by the petitioners. What is contended is that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had not made some submissions based on the legal positions. In other words, the petition infact is for urging the court to take a different view in the matter on the legal submissions sought to be advanced. This will definitely not be covered by the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 10. There is another objection taken up by the respondent to the review petition which again is based upon the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and anr. V/s.N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. reported in JT 1997(1) S.C.page 486 and Mohan Lal Bagla V/s.Board of * 6 * Revenue, U.P.,Lucknow and Ors.reported in AIR 2005 Allahabad page 308. Ms.Wandrewalla submits that a review petition filed by another advocate on record even without securing a No- objection certificate from the earlier advocate must be deprecated. This is because the subsequent advocate coming on record would not know what had transpired before the court earlier. He would not know what were the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and in respect of the queries which were made by the court, whether the same were satisfactorily replied or not. It must be in the knowledge of the learned counsel who was appearing in the first hearing of the case. The Apex Court has deprecated such a practice in strong terms and by awarding exemplary costs to the extent of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents as according to the Apex Court filing of such a review petition was an abuse of process of law in derogation of healthy practice. In the instant case also, the lawyer representing the petitioners earlier was Advocate A.M.Saraogi who had taken out Civil Application No. 117 of 2008 and argued the same. After dismissal of that Civil application, Mr.Dani has come on record. Perusal of the vakalatnama filed by him shows that he has not obtained No-objection certificate from Advocate A.M.Saraogi. Hence, the present petition would be fully * 7 * covered by the observations of the Apex Court in the decisions cited above. It has been lastly submitted on behalf of the respondents that even the certificate of Advocate for ground of review required to be filed under Rule 23(3) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 cannot be by a subsequent advocate. In the instant case, there is a certificate filed by Advocate Mr.Dani certifying that in his judgment grounds of review in the petition presented by him on behalf of the petitioner are good grounds of review. Such a certificate could not have been filed by him because the learned advocate does not know what had transpired before the court earlier. 11. The preliminary objections taken by the respondent on all the three grounds are correct in their contents. Advocate Mr.Dani could not personally know as to what had transpired before the court at the time of hearing of the Civil Application No.117 of 2008 so as to give a certificate of the grounds of review. He has not obtained No-objection certificate from the earlier advocate. Further, the contentions in the review petitions relate to submissions advanced before the court and could not be stated to be an error apparent on the face of the record. In these circumstances, the preliminary objections are required to be * 8 * upheld. Since, the Review Petition is not maintainable, there is no need for the court to consider the merits of the case. The Review Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.]