-: 1 :- RP- 153/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION LODGING NO.153 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.975 OF 2009 Vandana Joshi ....Appellant Versus Standard Chartered Bank Ltd ....Respondent. Ms. Vandana Joshi, Petitioner-in-person. Mr. J. P. Cama, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashok Shetty for respondent. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATE : 13TH DECEMBER, 2010. P.C.: 1. Heard the petitioner-in-person and Mr. J. P. Cama, learned senior counsel for the respondent–bank. The present review petition is filed under section 114 and Order 47 Rule-1 of the C.P.C seeking review of the judgment dated 26th October 2010 passed by this Court in aforesaid appeal. 2. The review petition is filed on the ground that srp -: 2 :- RP- 153/10 the document annexed at Exhibit-F to the review petition was discovered subsequent to the judgment passed in appeal. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said document supports the case of the petitioner that she is workman. The petitioner also contended that the respondent has cited irrelevant judgments and this Court, ignoring the material on record which on proper consideration justifies the claim of the petitioner, has passed the impugned judgment. It was also submitted that the reliance placed by this Court on Mukesh K. Tripathi vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors. 2004 III CLR 534 was uncalled for and the burden of proof to prove that the petitioner was workman was wrongly put on her. 3. Having heard the petitioner-in-person and learned senior counsel for the respondent, we do not find any merit in the review petition. So far as the petitioner’s case regarding discovery of new document, namely, DSR curriculum is concerned, we find that though the petitioner has stated that the said document was discovered subsequent to the pronouncement of judgment in appeal, she has not pleaded in her petition or placed any evidence on record to show that inspite -: 3 :- RP- 153/10 of exercise of due diligence, it was not within her knowledge and therefore she could not produce the same. We find that in fact in paragraph no.C of the review petition the petitioner has stated that MW No. 2 Tripti Shrivastava in her cross examination admitted that she was aware about DSR [Direct Salves Representative]. This statement of the petitioner in above para makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner had knowledge or was aware about this document during the proceedings before Industrial Tribunal and therefore review petition cannot be entertained on the ground of discovery of new document. 4. The petitioner has relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in BCCI & Anr. vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors, [(2005) 4 SCC 741] and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Ariham Pishak Sharma & Ors [(1979) 4 SCC 389]. There is no doubt about the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in these judgments that 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. The Supreme Court in above cases -: 4 :- RP- 153/10 also held that the review jurisdiction can be exercised in case where some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. However, on facts of the present case, we find that the petitioner had knowledge about the document which is sought to be produced now, which she claims to have been discovered subsequent to the date of judgment. Therefore, ratio of these judgments is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. So far as the other grounds urged by the petitioner seeking review are concerned, we find that the petitioner’s claim is that the impugned judgment is erroneous on merits. The petitioner could not point out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to review the impugned judgment under section 114 and Order 47(1) of CPC. Hence, review petition is rejected. (RANJIT MORE, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)