Bombay High Court
ASHOK PANDURANG PIMPLE AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as the order contains no prima facie error and all matters are to be agitated in the second appeal.
Summary
The petitioners filed a review petition against an order dated 22 April 2024 that directed parties to approach the Appellate Court with any grievance. They argued that a pending application for impleadment of additional properties under Order VI Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed on the same day the decree was passed, should be considered. The court first condoned a delay of over two years in filing the review petition. Upon review, the court found no prima facie error in the original order, noting that it did not determine any substantive rights and that all contentions were left open for adjudication in the second appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the review petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 2 years and 130 days in filing the review petition should be condoned.
- Whether the order dated 22 April 2024 contains any prima facie error warranting a review.
- Whether the pending application for impleadment under Order VI Rule 7 of the CPC affects the validity of the order.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VI Rule 7
Subjects
- review petition
- delay condonation
- second appeal
- impleadment
- Civil Procedure Code
- order dismissal
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
MEERA
MEERA MAHESH 43-ia-7377-26.doc
MAHESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.23
15:16:33
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7377 OF 2026
IN
REVIEW PETITION ST.NO.26840 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3521 OF 2021
Ashok Pandurang Pimpale & Ors. Applicants/
.. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Ms. Divya Parab, Advocate (through VC) for Petitioners.
Ms. V.R. Raje, APP for Respondent No.1 - State.
................…
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Ms. Parab, learned Advocate for the
Applicants/Petitioners and Ms. Raje, learned APP for Respondent No.1
– State.
2. There is an interim application which states that there is a
delay of 2 years and 130 days in filing the Review Petition. That delay
is condoned for the reasons stated in the interim application.
3. Interim application accordingly stands disposed of.
4. Review Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith.
5. Review is sought of the order dated 22.04.2024. By virtue of
the said order, the parties who are in the Second Appeal Court in view
Meera Jadhav 1 of 2
43-ia-7377-26.doc
of the decree passed by the Trial Court were directed to approach the
Appellate Court with their grievance if any. However, the Review
Petitioners’ case is that before Trial Court on the very day when the
decree was passed, application filed by Plaintiffs for impleadment of
additional properties under Order VI Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908 was pending. This can be agitated before the Appellate
Court.
6. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open by
this Court to be agitated in the Second Appeal in accordance with law.
Hence there is no prima facie error apparent found on the face of
record while passing the order dated 22.04.2024 as the said order does
not determine any substantiate rights of the parties.
7. Needless to state that this Court has not opined on any of the
merits of the matter as agitated in the Review Petition and all
contentions are expressly kept open.
8. Hence, in view of above, Review Petition is dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Meera Jadhav 2 of 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.