In this miscellaneous civil application for review filed under Section 114 of the Civil Proceedings Rules, 1973, considering whether an error apparent on the face of the record existed in the prior order of 27.03.2019.
The miscellaneous civil application was rejected.
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.
MCA987-19
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.987/2019 IN W.P.NO.63/2019(D)
(DEEPAK BALIRAM BELORKARVERSUS NILKANTH BALIRAM BELORKAR & OTHERS)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, counsel for applicant.
Shri A.S. Dhore, counsel for NA-1.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR J.
DATE :MARCH 06, 2020.
Heard.
Perused the judgments in Mahalingayya Basappayya
Ullagaddimath Versus Sangayya Chennayya Ullagaddimath [AIR
1943 Bombay 397] and Asha Krishinlall Bajaja Versus The Sub-
Registrar of Assurance, Ulhasnagar No.2 & Others [2004(4) All MR
138].
I do not find an error apparent on the face of record in
the order dated 27.03.2019. The effort of the learned counsel for
the applicant is to take a different view by re-opening the entire
proceedings. This exercise is beyond review jurisdiction.
The miscellaneous civil application is therefore rejected.
( A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. )
APTE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain a review application seeking to re-open concluded proceedings.
Whether an error apparent on the face of the record exists in the impugned order of 27.03.2019.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahalingayya Basappayya Ullagaddimath Versus Sangayya Chennayya UllagaddimathReferred¶13
Mahalingayya Basappayya Ullagaddimath Versus Sangayya Chennayya Ullagaddimath [AIR 1943 Bombay 397] · Who else cites this
Asha Krishinlall Bajaja Versus The Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Ulhasnagar No.2 & OthersReferred¶13
Asha Krishinlall Bajaja Versus The Sub-Registrar of Assurance, Ulhasnagar No.2 & Others [2004(4) All MR 138]
DEEPAK BALIRAM BELORKAR
NILKANTH BALIRAM BELORKAR & OTHERS
A.S. CHANDURKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court