THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHAMRAO SONA BHOSALE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:38480
                                                                             23-CA-6924-26.odt
                                                  1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  23 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6924 OF 2026 IN RAST/12990/2026
                                             IN
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 12369 OF 2021

               The Nanded Town Market Area House Building Co Operative Society Ltd
                                    Through Its Chairman
                                           VERSUS
                                Nirmalabai Vishwanath Barde

                                             ......
          Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for
          the Applicant
                                             ......

                                           CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                           DATE       : 6 JULY, 2026
          PER COURT :

          ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY:


          1.       By this Civil Application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of

          19 days in filing the accompanying Review Application.


          2.       For the reasons stated in the application, sufficient cause has been

          made out for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the Civil Application is

          allowed. The delay of 19 days in filing the Review Application stands

          condoned.


          ORDER IN REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.12990 OF 2026:


          3.       Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.P. Katneshwarkar for the

          applicant.
                                                                23-CA-6924-26.odt
                                     2


4.     By the present Review Application, the applicant seeks review, recall

and modification of the judgment and order dated 11.03.2026 passed by

this Court in Writ Petition No.12369 of 2021.


5.     Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that an error

apparent on the face of the record has crept into the judgment under review.

Inviting my attention to paragraphs 4 and 13 to 16 of the judgment, he

submitted that two layout plans were available on record, namely the

sanctioned layout plan of the year 1994 and the layout plan of 2001

prepared subsequently, which, according to him, came to be cancelled in the

year 2002. It is contended that while deciding the writ petition, this Court

proceeded on the basis of the layout plan of the year 1994 instead of the

sanctioned layout plan of 2001, thereby recording observations contrary to

the record. On this ground, it is prayed that the order dated 11.03.2026 be

recalled and the writ petition.


6.     I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned

Senior Counsel and have perused the order sought to be reviewed.


7.      A perusal of paragraph 4 of the judgment would indicate that the

same merely records the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in

the writ petition. Likewise, paragraphs 13 and 14 record the submissions

canvassed on behalf of the respondent. The observations and findings of this

Court are contained in paragraphs 15 and 16, which were recorded after
                                                                 23-CA-6924-26.odt
                                       3

considering the material and the layout plan placed before the Court. The

contention now sought to be raised is essentially directed against the

appreciation of the material considered while deciding the writ petition. It

cannot be said that the findings recorded therein suffer from any patent

error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review

jurisdiction.


8.         The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review is

maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record

and not for rehearing the matter or re-appreciating the evidence already

considered. The applicant, under the guise of seeking review, is virtually

seeking reconsideration of the findings recorded by this Court on merits,

which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.


9.         Having considered the grounds raised in the Review Application and

the submissions advanced, I do not find any error apparent on the face of

the record in the judgment and order dated 11.03.2026 warranting its

review or recall.


10.        The Review Application is, therefore, devoid of merit. Hence, the

Review Application stands dismissed.



                                            [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                      JUDGE
S P Rane