Bombay High Court
SANTOSH BALIRAM KOLIversusPANDIT LAXMAN PATIL AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that no apparent error was shown and therefore dismissed the review application.
Summary
The applicant filed a review application seeking condonation of a 97‑day delay in filing the review of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 5955 of 2018 dated 10 March 2026. The applicant, who is the original respondent No. 3, argued that the order should be recalled because the advocate who filed the writ petition cannot be called as a witness, alleging an apparent error. The court examined the claim and found that the applicant could not point out any specific apparent error in the original order and was merely attempting to re‑argue the merits of a matter already disposed of. Consequently, the court declined to condone the delay and dismissed the review application without costs. The order of the original writ petition therefore stands.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 97 days in filing a review application can be condoned.
- Whether an apparent error exists in the order dated 10 March 2026 that justifies a review.
- Whether an advocate can be called as a witness to demonstrate such error.
Subjects
- review
- condonation of delay
- apparent error
- writ petition
- civil procedure
- order recall
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45861
10-CA-10865-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
10 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10865 OF 2026
IN RAST/20708/2026
Santosh Baliram Koli
VERSUS
Pandit Laxman Patil And Ors
WITH
REVIEW APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 20708 OF 2026
IN WP/5955/2018
Santosh Baliram Koli
VERSUS
Pandit Laxman Patil And Ors
...
Mr. V. B. Patil for the Applicant.
Mr. D. A. Mane for the Respondents.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 24 SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C.:
1. This is an application filed for condonation of 97 days delay in filing
Review Application. Considering the averments made in the Application, the
same is allowed and delay is condoned.
2. The captioned Review Application is not on board. Upon mentioning,
taken on board.p
3. By this Application, the Applicant is seeking review of the order
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5955 of 2018 dated 10th march
2026.
Shubham Page 1 of 2
10-CA-10865-2026.doc
4. The present Application is filed on behalf of original Respondent No.3,
who contends that this Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Advocate
Mr. P. L. Patil. Mr. V. B. Patil, learned counsel for the Applicant tried to
convince that this Court ought not to have allowed the Writ Petition by
observing that the Advocate cannot be called as a witness and therefore he
submits that the order passed by this Court needs to be recalled. When a
specific query is made to Mr. V. B. Patil that what is apparent error
committed by this Court while passing the order, he tried to argue the
matter on merit and tried to re-open the matter which was already disposed
of. Therefore, considering the above, this Court finds that the Applicant is
unable to point out apparent error committed by this Court. Hence, no case
is made out to recall the said order. Hence, the Review Application is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…