1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. REVIEW APPLN. NO.: 16 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.: 5840 OF 2007 *** Shaikh Mohammed Khuram S/o Abdul Rashid Versus The State of Maharashtra and others *** Mr. M. S. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Advocate h/f Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, for Respondent No.7. Mr. V. D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. J. R. Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 – Absent. *** ORAL ORDER: [Per Borde, J.] 1. The petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5840 of 2007 decided on 17th June, 2008. The petition tendered by the Petitioner has been rejected mainly on two grounds, firstly on account of delay and laches in approaching this Court. It is observed by this Court, that Petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of about 35 years after alienation/ disposal of property in dispute. The delay and laches has not been properly explained by the Petitioner. The second ground for rejection of the petition is in respect of availability of the alternate remedy. 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 2. The learned counsel appearing for Review Petitioner contends that there is no alternative remedy available which can be availed of by the petitioner, nor the remedy as stated in the order is efficacious. It is to be noted that the grounds which are agitated for seeking review of the order are those which were urged by the petitioner in the petition. There is absolutely no new ground or new material placed on record which was not within the knowledge of petitioner, and inspite of exercise of due diligence on the part of the petitioner, which could not be brought to notice of this Court when the matter was taken up for consideration. The powers exercisable by the Court in respect of review of the orders are restricted and circumscribed by certain settled principles. Reliance can be placed on a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “Abribam Tuleshwar Sharma V/s Aribam Pishak Sharma and others” reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047 wherein while laying down principles for exercise of powers of review by the Court, the Apex Court has observed: “It is true there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 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 the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or 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 merits. That would be 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 errors committed by the Subordinate Court. 3. Similarly, reliance can be placed on a reported judgment in the matter of “Lily Thomas, etc. etc. V/s Union of India and others” reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650. The 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Apex Court has observed: “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. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review." 4. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and considering the fact situation of the case we are of the considered opinion that the application seeking review of the order, passed by this Court, does not need favourable consideration. The application being devoid of substance, stands rejected. [R. M. BORDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:08/04/2010. ans/16