Bombay High Court

RAJENDRA KASHINATH PARE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The review application is dismissed as no grounds under CPC Section 114 are established.

Summary

The applicants filed a review application challenging a civil order dated 23 April 2026, arguing that the court failed to apply the precedent of Anjuman‑E‑Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025) which was held applicable in a related writ petition. The respondents contended that a similar review had already been dismissed and that the Supreme Court had upheld that dismissal, emphasizing the limited scope of review under CPC Section 114. The court examined the submissions and reiterated the restrictive parameters for review as laid down in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025). It found no sufficient ground under Section 114 to entertain the review. Consequently, the review application was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the judgment in Anjuman‑E‑Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2025) is applicable to the present civil order.
Whether the review application is maintainable under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Whether prior dismissal of a similar review and Supreme Court affirmation preclude a fresh review.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 114

Subjects

review application
Civil Procedure Code
Section 114
precedent applicability
judicial review
Supreme Court affirmation
civil order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39728-DB



                                                     1
                                                                         4-ca-9942-2026

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9942 OF 2026
                                          IN RAST/19838/2026

                                  Rajendra Kashinath Pare And Others
                                                 VERSUS
                     The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
                                                   ...
                Mr. B. S. Doifode h/f Mr. Y. L. Bidve, Advocate for Applicants
                Mr. P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. Respondent-State
                Mr. S. R. Dheple, Advocate for Respondent no.4 and 5
                                                   …..
                                       CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                   AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
                                        DATED      : 31ST AUGUST, 2026
                P.C. :-

                CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9942 OF 2026

                .         Heard learned Advocate for the applicants.

                2.        For the reasons stated in the application, Civil Application

                stands allowed. Delay stands condoned.

                REVIEW APPLICATION ST NO.19838 OF 2026

                1.        We have heard this Review Application.

                2.        Learned Advocate for the applicants vehemently argued that

                this Court has not applied the judgment in the case of Anjuman-E-

                Taleem Trust Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors , reported in

                (2025) SCC Online SC 1921. He further submits that the Principal
                                  2
                                                       4-ca-9942-2026

Seat at Bombay while deciding Writ Petition No.1279 of 2026 has

held the said judgment to be applicable. However, in the present

matter, the same judgment has not been held to be applicable and

therefore, the same has been wrongly considered.

3.    This Court finds that the order sought to be reviewed is dated

23.04.2026. Whereas the order passed in Writ Petition No.1279 of

2026 is of 29.07.2026. Learned Advocate thus submits that the said

judgment be held to be applicable in the present case. Since, this

Court has not correctly considered the said judgment, there is a case

made out for entertaining the Review Application.

4.    On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. S. R. Dheple, for the

Zilla Parishad submits that this Court has already dismissed a Review

Application in the same set of facts being Review Application no.113

of 2026 in Writ Petition No.2752 of 2026 by order dated 13.08.2026.

He further submits that in a similar matter, the judgment of this

Court was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP

(C) Diary No.31533 of 2026 and the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed

the order passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition. He submits

that merely because there is a change in view of the Court, no review

is maintainable.
                                   3
                                                        4-ca-9942-2026

5.      This Court has considered the submissions. Now, it is a trite

law that the scope of Review Application is very limited. In the case

of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another , reported at 2025 INSC

1080, the Hon’ble Apex Court has already set out the parameters for

entertaining a Review Application. Even otherwise, this Court finds

no parameters of Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code are made

out by the applicants.

6.      Considering above, this Court does not find any reason to

review the order. The Review Application therefore stands dismissed.




     [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J]              [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…