1 CA NO.13393/2009 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13393 OF 2009 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13392 OF 2009 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.114 OF 2009 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION 256 OF 2002 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. VJ Dixit, Sr.Counsel with Mr.A.B.Girase, Advocate for applicant s; Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for respondent s CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 30 th November, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) CA No.13392/2009 is moved for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1-A. There is delay in the exercise. Considering the controversy, the delay is condoned, abatement set aside. Legal heirs of Respondent No.1-A, referred in the application, be brought on record immediately. Both the CAs for condonation of delay and bringing the legal heirs are allowed as above. 3) Mr.Mantri, learned Counsel, waives service on behalf of the proposed legal representatives. 4) Heard on merits of the review petition. 2 CA NO.13393/2009 5) A basic objection to entertain the review petition is raised by Mr. Mantri, representing the respondents in review that the order of this Court dated 15.9.2009 is an eye-opener as this Court found that the application for review is moved on 29.7.2002 against the judgment dated 28.6.2002 recorded by the learned Single Judge in CRA No.256/2002. The application was not placed any time prior to 5.9.2009 though the learned Judge retired in May 2009. According to Mr.Mantri, this laxity on the part of the review petitioner, necessitates at the threshold to reject the review petition. 6) Mr.Dixit, learned Sr. Counsel for the review petitioner, after reading the order of learned Single Judge referred above, canvassed that the observation in paragraph 5 of the order could not have been informed and addressed, as it is not a simple correction of a typographical or clerical error, it goes to the root of the matter as time- barred relief would be reviewed by virtue of entertaining such amendment. In the exercise, to explain his point, the learned Sr.Counsel read the order of learned District Judge, Nandurbar dated 31.10.2001 whereby he rejected the application for amendment under Order VI 3 CA NO.13393/2009 Rule 17 of CPC. 7) The scope of review is enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Review is permitted, if a party, who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. 8) The above mandate, need not be put to shells. The only course, that would be available to the petitioners would be “other sufficient reason”. Having read the order of the learned Single Judge, I do not find any error of law or fact or that the rights of the review petitioners are prejudicially affected by any mistake of the learned Judge. The scope of review being limited, this Court being not sitting in its appeal, will not be able to observe that the findings of the learned Judge are erroneous or contrary to the record. 9) With these observations, the review 4 CA NO.13393/2009 petition lacks merit, dismissed. 10)It is clarified, the point of limitation, that has been agitated by the review petitioners, will be open for them to be addressed before the learned Judge, seized with the matter, before the learned Additional District Judge, Nandurbar, where, Regular Civil Appeal No.34/1992, is pending. 11)The review petitioners, having not taken steps for more than six years, as illustrated above, shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as costs to the respondents,to be deposited before the learned Additional District Judge, Nandurbar, within two months from today. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/