1 RA NO.102/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 102 OF 2011 in Contempt Petition no.96/2010 (decided on 11th of August 2010) in W.P.No.3528 of 2007 1. Vinay K.Kadu, aged about 58 years, r/o Digras, Principal, B.B.Arts and N.B. Commerce and B.P.Science College, Digras, Distt.Yavatmal. 2. Vijaykumar Bang, aged major, r/o Digras Vibhagiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Digras, Tah.& District Yavatmal. ...APPLICANTS/ RESPONDENTS VERSUS Shivshankar K.Rathod, Aged about 40 years, Resident of Digras, Taluka and District Yavatmal. ...NON APPLICANT/ PETITIONER ... Mr. S.J.Kadu, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. V.V.Bhangde, Adv., for the respondent, absent. ... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. Dated: November 29, 2011 ... 2 RA NO.102/2011 PER COURT :- 1. Learned Counsel submits, the power of Mr.Bhangade, Advocate, is on record and, consequently, service to Mr.Bhangade dated 28.11.2011 through his Clerk is proper service. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the review applicant. The orders recorded by this Court on 11th August, 2010, (in assignment at Nagpur) in Contempt Petition No.96/2010, in Writ Petition No.3528/2007, are sought to be reviewed and, particularly, the portion hereinafter quoted, reflected in paragraph no.3: " The management accepts to maintain muster for attendance of the petitioner- teacher, till the decision in Writ Petition No.3528/2007. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive regular salary till disposal of Writ Petition No.3528 of 2007 on his resuming duties as indicated above." Learned Counsel submits, statement, as appearing in paragraph No.3, was not made on behalf of the management before this Court and, consequently, afore referred part in order has created hurdles for the management. The Writ Petition No.3528/2007 is allowed by remanding 3 RA NO.102/2011 the matter to the School Tribunal, to be decided in accordance with law by order dated 3rd Oct., 2011. 3. Learned Counsel submits that the Purshis dated 11.8.2010 tendered by the parties does not display maintaining muster by the management. 4. The powers of Review have in-built restrictions. Whatever has transpired between the parties has reflected in the order. Asking to delete the same is contrary to record and judicial discipline. Review cannot be second dose to withdraw earlier arrangement on account of its hardship. The observation of Sir Leonard Stone, the last British Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, needs to be seen: " There is common bond of fellowship between us, for each of us, in his planned sphere, his part in forwarding the cause of justice." 5. Learned Counsel submits that the review is maintainable in terms of Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Article 215 conceive as under: 4 RA NO.102/2011 "215. High Courts to be courts of record Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself." He relies to the judgment of Division Bench dated December 9th, 2010 in Shyamsundar Vs. Lokesh Chandra in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1048/2009. The Division Bench has, by placing reliance to the judgments of Supreme Court held, powers of review are available to the High Court. The order reads: "(a) In exercise of powers to punish the contemnor by virtue of Section 215 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the provision of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the High Court has jurisdiction to review its own order. Ordered accordingly." 6. Order 47 of C.P.C. speaks for review in certain contingencies, which are: (a) There should be a discovery of new and important matter or evidence. (b) Such discovery could not be known even inspite of exercise of due diligence when the decree was passed or order was made or, (c) on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. 5 RA NO.102/2011 7. Learned Counsel does not bank upon any of such contingencies. The observations in paragraph no.3, reading from any angle, could not be a brainchild of the Court unless it was mentioned at the material time or discussed by the Counsel or parties. There is no error in the order. 8. The second feature in the matter is, it is settled legal position, the Court record or judgment speaks for itself on facts as narrated by the parties. Review of order is not permissible, save and except in the situations encompassed under Order 47 of C.P.C. or under Section 114 of C.P.C. 9. Taking survey of the above facts, I do not see, present application seeking review is to be heard and leave to review is to be granted. Leave to review is refused. Application lacks merit, dismissed. The observations are prima facie in nature. Record and proceedings be sent back immediately at Nagpur. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ... agp/102-11ra