Ram-Saket Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Domnic Anthony D Souza (Since Deceased) Thr Its Smt. Luiza Widow of Domnic D Souza — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ram-Saket Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Domnic Anthony D Souza (Since Deceased) Thr Its Smt. Luiza Widow of Domnic D Souza — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a Review Petition permits re-argument of the whole matter decided in the original order, including reliance on case law never relied upon by the counsel who argued the original Appeal. +2 more

Court's answer

The scope of a Review Petition is limited; this Court cannot permit the petitioner to re-argue the whole matter. If a party is aggrieved by the findings of the original order, the remedy lies somewhere else and not in filing a Review Petition.

Ratio / Principle

Since the learned senior counsel stated he will challenge the impugned order dated 06.11.2025 in Appeal, the points raised in the Review can certainly be raised in that Appeal, if the petitioner so desires.

Key takeaways

The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court have time and again deprecated the practice of the main matter being argued by one counsel and the Review by another counsel; in this Appeal the same occurred.obiter¶13
The case laws newly relied upon by senior counsel (on advocate's negligence not making a litigant suffer, sufficient cause for absence, party's knowledge of the hearing date, and substantial justice) are judgments on the merits of the case; on such merits this Court cannot permit the petitioner to re-argue the case in this Review Petition.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Jitendra Jain, J.) — Review Petition No. 13 of 2025 in Appeal From Order No. 618 of 2015 (Ram Saket Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. LRs. of Domnic Anthony D'Souza), decided 27 November 2025: DISMISSED. The petition sought review of the order dated 06.11.2025 passed in the Appeal From Order under Order 43 CPC. Held: (i) the scope of a Review Petition is limited; re-arguing the whole matter is impermissible, and a party aggrieved by the findings of the original order must seek its remedy elsewhere (in Appeal), not in review; (ii) since senior counsel stated he would challenge the impugned order in Appeal, all points raised in the Review can be raised there; (iii) case law newly introduced in review on advocate's negligence, sufficient cause, knowledge of hearing date and substantial justice concerns the merits and cannot ground re-argument; (iv) the Court deprecated the practice of different counsel arguing the main matter and the review.

HMK 1 09. RPA-13-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO. 13 OF 2025 IN

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 618 OF 2015

Ram Saket Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ….Petitioner/Appellant

Versus

Domnic Anthony D’Souza (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs. 1(a) Luiza Widow Of Domnic D Souza & ors. .…Respondents

Mr. Atul Damle, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Vishal Shriyan, Mr. Aditya Seetharaman i/by Mr. Vishal Shriyan for the Petitioner/Appellant. Mr. Anil D’Souza i/by Mr. Charles D’mello for Respondent No.1(b). Mr. Sourabh A. Saxena i/by R. D. Khare for Respondent No.2(a) to (c).

CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 27^th NOVEMBER 2025

P. C. :

This Review Petition is filed seeking review of an order dated 06^th November, 2025 passed in an Appeal From Order under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

At the outset, the Appeal From Order was argued by one Mr. Aditya Seetharaman, whereas, the present Review is being argued by learned senior counsel Mr. Damle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court has time and again deprecated the practice of the main matter being argued by one counsel and Review being argued by another counsel. In this Appeal, same thing has occurred.

HMK 2 09. RPA-13-2025.doc

On a query raised by the Court, the learned senior counsel states that he will challenge in Appeal the impugned order dated 06^th November, 2025. If that be so, then certainly the points raised in the Review can be raised in the Appeal, if the petitioner so desires.

The learned senior counsel has sought to re-argue the whole matter, which cannot be permitted in a Review Petition, since the scope of a Review Petition is limited. If the party is aggrieved by the findings of the original order, then the remedy lies somewhere else and not in filing a Review Petition.

The learned senior counsel has relied upon various case laws, which were never relied upon by the original counsel who argued the Appeal. In any case, the judgments are in support of the proposition that Advocate’s negligence should not be a case for the litigant to suffer, whether sufficient cause is shown for absence on the date of hearing, whether party had knowledge of the date of hearing and on the issue of substantial justice to be considered. These are the judgments on the merits of the case and has observed by me above, in this Petition this Court cannot permit the petitioner to re-argue the case.

In view of above, the Review Petition is dismissed.