.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 127 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10194 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.G.T. Kambale i/b Mr.S.G. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr.Pratap Patil for respondents nos.1 to 8. Mr.Manish Jain for respondents nos.9 and 10. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Writ Petition No.10194 of 2004 was decided by the following decision rendered by this Court in Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank v. Nigam Mannan, 2006(4) B.C.R. 217. However, the decision in Solapur Social Bank’s case has been over-ruled in a subsequent decision - 2 - of the Division Bench. Hence, the judgment under review requires reconsideration. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the explanation to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the C.P.C.") which reads thus:- "Explanation Explanation Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the fact that the question of law on which the judgment under review was based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court, cannot be a ground for review in view of the explanation to - 3 - Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the C.P.C. The sole ground on which the review is sought is that the decision of this Court in Solapur Social Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Nigam A. Mannan Beskar on a question of law has been set aside, cannot be a ground for review. 5. In the circumstances, review petition is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)