The High Court of Bombay dismissed a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC against an order disposing of a writ petition. The court held that it could not use review jurisdiction to rehear the original matter or reconsider arguments not presented earlier.
Review petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 of 3 RPW(L).55.2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.55 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.523 OF 2013
S.D.Bhoskar & Co. and another Petitioners versus Bank of Baroda and another Respondents
Mr.Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Satish Shetye, D.V.Dalwani i/by Ms.Hemakshi B. Gandhi for Petitioners.
Mr.Nikhil Rajani i/by M/s.V.Deshpande & Co. for Respondent no.2.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 11 December 2015
PC :
The Review Petitioners are the original Petitioners in Writ Petition No.523 of 2013. They seek review of the order passed on 14 October 2015.
2 of 3 RPW(L).55.2015
that stage, this Court has finally disposed of the writ petition, though there was a legal issue involved and the court was at one stage inclined to consider it. Now, serious prejudice will be caused to the Petitioners because the Petitioners would have to comply with the condition of pre-deposit and then alone the appeal filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal would be heard and decided. The non compliance with the condition imposed will result in dismissal of the appeal before DRAT. Therefore, it is in the fitness of the things that the legal questions be decided by this Court.
3 of 3 RPW(L).55.2015
former one, the Court cannot go behind the order under review and cannot rehear the original case. We are of the opinion that the order dated 14 October 2015 is, if in any way erroneous, it is open for the Petitioners to challenge it, but we cannot review it as we think that the limited parameters of review jurisdiction do not permit us to do so.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.)
MST
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a review petition to rehear the original matter based on contentions not considered earlier.
Whether a review petition allows challenging substantive merits or is limited to errors apparent on the record.
S.D.Bhoskar & Co.
another
Bank of Baroda
another
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI
B.P.COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
