Dismissed

Shri Suhas Balaji Yerawar v. Shri Arun S/O Keshavrao Yerawar and Another

Bombay HC24 Jan 2020CAS/109/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench rejected an application seeking recall and review of prior orders regarding adverse possession and title declarations. The court held that a review application dismissed on procedural bars constitutes a final order, preventing further review based on subsequent interpretation of law.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking recall of orders and review is rejected and not entertained.

Shri Suhas Balaji Yerawar Vs Shri Arun S/O Keshavrao… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

CAS109.2020

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (S) No.109/2020 in SECOND APPEAL No.160/2018 AND In MCA 1372/2018

¶5

Suhas Balaji Yerawar
Vs.

¶6

Arun Keshavrao Yerawar and another.

¶7

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders
or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶10

Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for applicant.
Shri Ritesh Dawda, Advocate for non applicants.

¶11

CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE: 24.01.2020

¶12

This application seeks recall of the order dated
31.07.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.160/2018 and the
order dated 21.12.2018 passed in Miscellaneous Civil
Application (Review) No.1372/2018.

¶13

2.In support of the application the learned
counsel for the applicant submits by relying upon the
decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit
Kaur and others 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 87 especially paragraph
58 thereof that as it is open for the plaintiff to seek
declaration of his title by way of adverse possession, the
orders in question deserve to be reviewed. He also relies
upon the decisions in Board of Control for Cricket, India
Vs. Netaji Cricket Club 2005 AIR SC 592 and M.M.Thomas
Vs. State of Kerala 2000 (1) SCC 666 to urge that such
errors can be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

¶14

3.The application for review cannot be
entertained for two reasons, firstly the judgment dated

¶15

CAS109.2020

¶16

2/2

¶17

31.07.2018 in Second Appeal No.160/2018 was sought to
be reviewed. The review however has been dismissed on
21.12.2018. The bar under the provisions of Order XLVII
Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is thus
attracted.

¶18

Secondly subsequent interpretation of law
cannot be a good ground for review and therefore I am not
inclined to entertain the review application. Though it is
urged on behalf of the applicant that the prayer is for
recalling of the aforesaid orders, in effect review is sought
by way of recalling of orders. Hence the said application is
not entertained and it is accordingly rejected.

¶19

 JUDGE

¶20

Andurkar..

Shri Suhas Balaji Yerawar v. Shri Arun S/O Keshavrao Yerawar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Suhas Balaji Yerawar v. Shri Arun S/O Keshavrao Yerawar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Haribhau Ingle Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Shri Nana S/O Falgunarao Patole and Another Vs Nitin S/O Jairam Gadkari

Balkrishna S/O Mahadeo Gharat Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Mumbai Thr. Senior Employees Relation Manager

Mr. Aftab Khan Jalil Khan Vs Municipal Council, through Its Chief Officer, Wardha

Ramesh S/O Dhondbaji Nagdeve Vs Sau. Saroj W/O Anil Mate and Another

Manohar @ Sagar S/O Pundlik Dabrase Vs the Election Commission of India through Its Chairman, New Delhi and Another