-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Review Petition No. 93 of 2006 in Writ Petition No. 5048 of 2001 Dr.Goolcher daugthter of Khurshedji Mehta and wife of K.P.Viswanathan ..Petitioner vs. 1. Shri Jasi D.Bhathena and ors. ..Respondents Mr.K.P.Viswanathan, petitioner’s husband in person. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar i/b Mr.N.P.Shimpi for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 28th March, 2008 8th March, 2008 8th March, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The review petition has been filed by the original respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.5048 of 2001 decided by learned single Judge (P.V.Kakade J.) on 3rd March, 2006. That writ petition was preferred by one Jasi D.Bhathena and others who are the original petitioners. 2. The writ petition under Article 227 decided by the learned single Judge was directed against the order of the lower Appellate Court dated 23rd July, 2001 allowing the Revision Application No.127 of 1999 in Execution -2- Application dated 16th June, 1999 in Appeal no.272 of 1978. The lower Appellate Court reversed the order of the Executing Court dated 8th September, 1999. By order dated 8th September, 1999 the Executing Court had held that the execution application preferred by the respondents before this Court in the above writ petition was not maintainable and the same came to be dismissed. The lower Appellate Court set aside this order and directed that execution of the decree can proceed in accordance with the prayers made in the execution application. 3. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the facts and conclusions recorded by this Court in as much as the party in person, appearing before me has argued and even in the written submissions that have been tendered, asserted that the decree in question is of possession. The Small Causes Court had decreed the suit being R.A.Decl.suit no.722/6106 of 1966. The Appellate decree is dated 31st March, 1981. Against the Appellate Decree the judgment debtor filed two writ petitions being writ petition nos.1382 of 1981 and 1880 of 1981. The learned Single Judge of this Court confirmed the decree with some variations and modifications on -3- 10th January, 1983. The writ petitioners were ordered to vacate the premises. The execution was stayed for three years till 1st January, 1986. Aggrieved by the variation and inordinate long stay of the execution, the present review petitioner, filed an earlier Review Petition being Civil Application No.514 of 1983. Since the learned single Judge who had delivered the judgment on 10th January, 1983 had retired in the mean time, a Division Bench was constituted under the then prevailing Rules and the Division Bench dismissed the review petition on merits confirming the decree of the learned single Judge. The review order is dated 1st August, 1997. 4. After dismissal of the review petition on 1st August, 1997, the subject Execution application was filed. To be precise, it was filed on 16th June, 1999. That was rejected by the Executing Court by order referred to hereinabove and that order of the Executing Court was set aside by the lower Appellate Court. That is how the writ petition no.5048 of 2001 was filed by the Judgment debtor and it was allowed by Shri Justice Kakade on 3rd March, 2006. -4- 5. A perusal of the review application and written submissions would indicate that the review petitioner is aggrieved and agitated by the fact that Hon’ble Justice Shri Kakade allowed the writ petition and dismissed the execution application holding that execution is time barred. Thus, when there were findings recorded on merits of the matter by the Courts below, this Court should have adverted to them and should not have set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court only on the ground of limitation. His criticism is that the judgment is cryptic. It is a one para judgment without proper reasoning. Further, according to him, there are errors apparent in the same. The error apparent is that the learned Judge has mistakenly termed an old Bombay High Court ruling as a Supreme Court judgment and followed it accordingly. Secondly, the learned single Judge has over looked two Supreme Court authorities cited by the review petitioner and his decision is contrary to law laid down therein,. 6. Shri Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the original -5- petitioners/respondent nos. 1 to 5 to the review petition has contended that the review petition is not maintainable because the party in person has been arguing the review petition as if it is permissible for him to assail and challenge the judgment of the learned single Judge on merits akin to an appeal. This is not an appellate jurisdiction. Review jurisdiction is very limited. The remedy of the review petitioner is to challenge the judgment of Kakade J. in the higher Court. Merely because there are typographical errors therein or that the learned Judge has not applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of this case or has applied the same erroneously is no ground for review. Consequently, the review petition be dismissed. 7. I have heard the party in person and the learned Senior Counsel Mr.Dhakephalkar at some length. I have perused the review petition and the written submissions placed on record. I have also perused the judgment under review. 8. From perusal of the same, I am satisfied that there is much substance in the contention of Mr.Dhakephalkar. The review petition is not -6- a remedy of the party in person. It is true that the learned Judge has referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 1954 Bombay 457 but has termed the same as Supreme Court judgment. That by itself would not furnish a ground for review. The judgment of the Bombay High Court is in deed on the point of a review of a judgment. The principle laid down therein has been applied to this case in coming to the conclusion that the execution application of the party in person was not maintainable. His contention that pendency of the review petition before this Court would save the bar of limitation and, therefore, the period prescribed would not begin to run, has been rejected by the learned single Judge. The view of the learned single Judge may be or may not be correct view. However, that is not for me to decide as I am not sitting in judgment over the learned single Judge’s decision. This is not an Appellate Court. The review jurisdiction is extremely limited. It is not possible to reassess and reconsider the entire material and the matter cannot be reopened. The limited jurisdiction that is conferred by section 114 read with order XLVII (47) Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not empower me to set aside -7- the judgment under review. The grounds made out are not such as would enable me to recall the said judgment. Merely because the review petition has been admitted does not mean that the same cannot be dismissed finally. I have considered the review petition after it was placed before me for hearing. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in matters of review and the principles set out therein, I am of the view that there is no merit in this review petition. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. 9. Since party in person is appearing I have refrained from making any order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)