1 WP 2146/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2003 Smt. Rekhmabai Sitaram Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s M/s Surya Developers & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar i/b Mr. U.S. Mhaispurkar for the petitioners. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 24TH JUNE 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 4th March 2004 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan, dismissing the application for review of his earlier order dated 4th December 2002. 3. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) permits a review of an order only on a limited ground, viz. discovery of new or important matter or evidence which, after exercise 2 WP 2146/2003 of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by the aggrieved party at the time when the decree was passed or order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. The expression “any other sufficient reason” takes colour from the earlier words and is ejusdem generis to the earlier grounds. The grounds available for challenging an order in appeal are not necessarily available as grounds of review. 4. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am satisfied that the grounds urged before me are in the nature of grounds of appeal and do not fall in any other grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code. The trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application for review. No interference is called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)