Bombay High Court
AMBADAS RAJARAM TALANKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The review application is dismissed as no apparent error of law is found in the impugned order.
Summary
Ambadas Rajaram Talankar filed a review application challenging the High Court's order dated 13 June 2025 in his writ petition against the State of Maharashtra. The court examined the scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that it is limited to correcting apparent errors of law that cause manifest injustice. Citing Lily Thomas v. Union of India and State of Telangana v. Mohammad Abdul Karim, the court held that a party cannot re‑agitate grounds already considered in the original proceeding. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the review application was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- The scope and limitations of a review petition under civil procedure
- Whether an apparent error of law exists in the impugned order
- Whether a party may re‑agitate grounds already raised in the original writ petition
Subjects
- review jurisdiction
- error of law
- writ petition
- condonation of delay
- civil application
- limited scope of review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:6946-DB
CA (Review) No. 1841.2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1841 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL)(ST) NO. 37560 OF 2025 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 13888/2021
AMBADAS RAJARAM TALANKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
***
Advocate for the Applicant : Mr. P. B. Waghmare
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. K. B. Jadhavar
***
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR AND
SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ.
Dated : 17th February, 2026
ORDER (Per : Sachin S. Deshmukh, J) :-
Civil Application No. 1841 OF 2026
1. Heard.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the civil
application for condonation of delay is allowed.
Review Application (Civil)(St.) No. 37560/2025
1. The applicant seeks review of the order dated
13.06.2025 rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13888 of
2021.
CA (Review) No. 1841.2026
-2-
2. Heard the learned counsel for applicant.
3. Having considered the contentions put forth by the
learned counsel for applicant, we have perused the order under
review.
4. It is well settled law that review petition has very
limited scope and party seeking review cannot canvas the original
proceeding as like the writ petition before the Court, as has been
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas
Vs. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 1650).
5. It is further well settled position of law that the scope
of review jurisdiction is limited only to correct the error of law
leading to manifest injustice, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Mohammad
Abdul Karim [(2024)6 SCC 461].
6. The learned counsel for applicant has attempted to re-
agitate and re-argue the ground mentioned in the writ petition. As
stated hereinabove, it is trite that it is not open for any of the party
to re-agitate the grounds those are already raised and considered
CA (Review) No. 1841.2026
-3-
while deciding the original proceeding.
7. An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and does not
require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where
there may conceivably be two opinions. The same is attempted by
the learned counsel for applicant by filing this review application, is
impermissible in law. The applicant is unable to point out error
much less error of law, apparent on the face of record.
8. In view of the afore-stated aspect, no error is noted in
the order dated 13.06.2025 under review.
9. Resultantly, the review application sans merit and
accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, no order as to
costs.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…