Bombay High Court

LAXMI NAGRATHversusKANIKA DANG

Decided: 25 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

A review petition cannot be entertained merely because a material fact was omitted; it must disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

Summary

The petitioner filed a review petition alleging that the court had not been informed of an application for condonation of delay in filing a revision, which purportedly affected the factual matrix. The court observed that the respondent failed to appear or present material, but emphasized that the petitioner must bring all relevant facts before the court. It held that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re‑argue or introduce new material. No such error was found, and the alleged suppression of facts did not constitute a ground for review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, and any pending interim applications were also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the omission to place the condonation of delay application before the court constitutes a ground for review
Whether the court can entertain a review petition on the basis of material not originally placed before it

Subjects

review jurisdiction
error apparent on the face of the record
condonation of delay
civil appellate procedure
interim application

Judgment

                                                                  2-rpw115-2026 with ia6568-2026.doc


                      AGK
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      REVIEW PETITION NO. 115 OF 2026
                                                     IN
                                     WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.4264 OF 2026
                                                   WITH
                                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6586 OF 2026

                      Laxmi Nagrath                                … Petitioner
                                V/s.
                      Kanika Dang & Ors.                           … Respondents



                      Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate i/b Mr.
ATUL
GANESH                Rajeev Talasikar for the petitioner.
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.08.25
                                                   CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.
17:36:15 +0530



                                                   DATED     : AUGUST 25, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      This Review Petition is principally filed on the ground that,
                      although an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the
                      Revision Application was already preferred, the said fact was not
                      brought to the notice of this Court when the matter was
                      considered. It is contended that the omission to place the said
                      material fact before the Court has resulted in the matter being
                      considered without taking into account the complete factual
                      position.

                      2.      Having perused the record and proceedings, it is evident that
                      despite several opportunities being granted, the Respondent failed
                      to appear before this Court and did not place the relevant material




                                                         1
                                               2-rpw115-2026 with ia6568-2026.doc


on record. It was, however, incumbent upon the Review Petitioner
to bring before this Court all relevant facts and documents
necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute on merits. The
failure of the Respondent to appear or to place the relevant record
cannot, by itself, be treated as a circumstance which would entitle
the Review Petitioner to seek a review of the order. The Court is
required to examine the Review Petition on the basis of the
material which was available before it when the order under
review was passed.

3.    In my opinion, the jurisdiction in review is limited. The
Court is required to examine whether, on the basis of the material
available on record, there is an error apparent on the face of the
record or any other legally recognised ground warranting exercise
of review jurisdiction. A review cannot be treated as an
opportunity to re-argue the matter or to introduce material which
was not properly placed before the Court at the relevant time. The
mere possibility of another view being taken on the facts, in the
absence of an error apparent on the face of the record, would not
justify interference in review jurisdiction.

4.    Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, and particularly the finding recorded in relation to
suppression of material facts, I am of the view that no ground is
made out for exercising the limited jurisdiction of review. The
material placed before this Court does not disclose any error
apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of
the order under review. The circumstances relied upon by the
Review Petitioner, therefore, do not justify interference with the



                                   2
                                           2-rpw115-2026 with ia6568-2026.doc


order already passed.

5.    In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the Review
Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

6.    In view of the dismissal of the Review Petition, the pending
Interim Application(s), if any, do not survive and the same stand
disposed of accordingly.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…