1 ra 194.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 194 OF 2010 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9938 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1862 OF 2010 Fakira Razzak Rangrej .. Applicant Versus Tukaram Shamrao Mane Deceased through his L.R.'s Janabai Tukaram Mane and others .. Respondents Shri P. F. Patni, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A. M. Dabir, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 13TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : . This is an application seeking review of the order dated 09th September, 2010 passed by this Court, thereby allowing the Civil Application No. 9938/2010 for condonation of delay. 2. Shri Patni, the learned counsel for the review petitioner states that the present non applicants who had filed the said 2 ra 194.10 Civil Application No. 9938/2010, had played a fraud upon the Court and had mislead the court by suppressing the real facts. The delay in fact is of 2 years, 4 months and 22 days and the non applicants had projected that the delay is only of 57 days. The impugned judgment and decree is passed on 16.02.2008. On 13.07.2010 the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay is filed which on the face of it, the delay was of more than two years. Even the date of knowledge which they have shown is patently erroneous in as much as after the suit was decreed, the present applicant had filed R.C.S. No. 140/2009 for injunction against the present non applicants. The summons of the same were served to the non applicants on 23.08.2009. Pursuant thereto they had also appeared in the said suit. The plaint itself discloses the factum of decree been passed in Special Civil Suit No. 248/2006. Even the present non applicants had appeared in the Spl. C. S. No. 248/2006 and had sought time for filing written statement. Initially that application was rejected. So they had filed a review and the same was also allowed. So it was also erroneous on their part to state that they had no knowledge of the said proceedings. 3. Shri Dabir, the learned counsel for non applicants state that though the applicant did not mention this fact still the non 3 ra 194.10 applicants can explain the circumstances. There is nothing on record to show that the copy of summons of the subsequent suit were accompanied with the copy of plaint. As such, the knowledge cannot be directly attributed to the present non applicants about the decree in Special Civil Suit No. 248/2006. The delay has been properly condoned. 4. No doubt, the jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the review U/Sec. 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in a narrow compass. The same can be exercised only on an error apparent on the face of the record. The perusal of the order shows that this Court was sought to be believed that there is delay of only 57 days. The appearance of the non applicants in the special civil suit of which the impugned judgment and decree is assailed was not brought to the notice, nor it was stated in the application that the present non applicants have appeared in the subsequent suit i. e. R.C.S. No. 140/2009. All these materials were not put before this Court, when the earlier order was passed. The perusal of the order shows that this Court considering the delay to be of only 57 days has condoned the same. 5. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter the review petition is allowed and the order dated 09th September, 4 ra 194.10 2010 is recalled. The Civil Application No. 9938/2010 shall be listed for hearing. The review application is disposed of. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11