Bombay High Court
SANDESH VIKRAM HANGE AND ANOTHERversusSANKET VIKRAM HANGE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court dismissed the review, holding that the District Judge's directions to expedite the pending partition suit were within his discretionary authority and no apparent error justified a review.
Summary
The applicants sought a review of the High Court's order that had upheld a District Judge's directions to expedite a pending partition suit (Special Civil Suit No.39 of 2018) by mandating its disposal within six months. The review argued that the direction was beyond the relief prayed for, was issued without the parties' consent, and caused prejudice. The Court examined the lower court's discretion, the scope of review jurisdiction, and cited Supreme Court precedents on the limits of review and the propriety of time‑bound directions. It found that the District Judge had acted within his discretionary powers, that no apparent error existed on the record, and that the directions did not prejudice the parties. Consequently, the review application was dismissed, with the Court noting that any further grievance must be pursued through appropriate applications in the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can review its own order granting directions to expedite a pending suit without the parties' consent.
- Whether the direction to decide the suit within six months exceeds the scope of relief prayed for and is ultra vires.
- Whether there is any apparent error on the face of the record justifying a review of the order.
- Whether the discretionary power exercised by the District Judge in expediting the partition suit can be interfered with.
- Whether the power of review is limited to correction of a mistake and not a substitute for an appeal.
Subjects
- family law
- partition suit
- interim injunction
- review jurisdiction
- court discretion
- time-bound directions
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36376
1 RA 65.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 65 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2598 OF 2026
1. Sandesh Vikram Hange,
age 38 years, Occ. Lawyer,
R/o. N-2, H-2/A-6, Thackrey Nagar,
Cidco, Aurangabad (Ch. Sambhajinagar),
2. Sapna d/o. Vikram Hange,
age 42 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o.N-2/H-2/A-6 Thackarey Nagar, Cidco,
Aurangabad (Chh. Sambhajinagar) Applicants.
(Orig deft 3 and 5)
VERSUS
1. Sanket Vikram Hange,
age 26 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o.N-2/H-2/A-6, Thackarey Nagar,
Cidco, Aurangabad (Chh. Sambhajinagar)
2. Bhavna w/o. Prashant Munde,
age 40 years, occ. Household,
Flat N.301, “C” Building,
Freedom Tower, Chh. Sambhajinagar.
3. Soniya d/o Vikram Hange,
age 36 yrs, Occ. Service
R/o. C/o Deelip Babasaheb Dongre,
Suyog bungalow, N-2, Mahajan Colony,
Cidco, Chh. Sambhajinagar. Respondents
(Resp 1 & 3 orig plaintiff,2 orig deft no.4.)
...
Applicant : Mr.Sandesh Vikram Hange - Party in Person
Mr. Sanket Vikram Hange - Party in Person-Respondent no.1
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. V.L. Bhange h/f Mr. K.D.
Jadhav
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. P.S Kundalwadikar
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Reserved on : July 16, 2026
Pronounced on : August 18, 2026
FINAL ORDER :-
2 RA 65.26.odt
1. The applicants seeks review of order dated 10.03.2026
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2598 of 2026 and
seeks restoration of the writ petition to its original position for
re-hearing.
2. The petitioners had filed writ petition no.2598 of 2026
assailing order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned District
Judge, Aurangabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No.128 of 2023,
thereby upholding order dated 20.07.2023 passed below
Exhibit-42 by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad
in Special Civil Suit No.39 of 2018. This Court dismissed the
writ petition vide order under review.
3. Respondent no.1 has filed Special Civil Suit No.39 of
2018 before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad
seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of
suit property. In that suit, an application was moved below
Exhibit-42 for grant of temporary injunction. On 20.07.2023
trial court was pleased to allow said application, which was
subjected to challenge by original defendant no.4 in Misc. Civil
Appeal No.128 of 2023 before learned District Judge, which
was ultimately dismissed on 15.11.2025. However, while
dismissing appeal, learned District Judge issued directions to
expedite hearing of the suit and made it time bound.
3 RA 65.26.odt
4. Petitioners had raised challenge to order passed by
learned District Judge mainly on the ground that learned
District Judge committed error while expediting hearing of
suit without consent of parties. This Court rejected writ
petition upholding the order passed by learned District Judge.
5. The applicants seeks review of order passed by this
Court in Writ Petition under premise that this Court has
erroneously recorded observation in paragraph no.2 of order,
which reads thus :-
“the learned District Judge found that during
the pendency of appeal, hearing in suit
started and therefore dismissed appeal with
direction that the suit decided expeditiously
and within period of six months.”
6. It is further submitted that Courts cannot grant reliefs
which is not prayed for. However, learned Distract Judge
without calling for status of suit, directed same to be decided
within six months, which has seriously caused prejudice to all
the parties. It is submitted that suit is still on unready board.
Some applications for amendment of pleadings are pending.
The directions for expeditiously deciding suit are given on
request of respondent no.4, who had delayed filing of written
statement for eight years. It is further submitted that it is the
duty of Court to rectify, revise and recall it’s order, if it is
brought to the notice that order is passed on wrong or
4 RA 65.26.odt
mistaken assumptions of facts and implementation of such
orders have serious consequences.
7. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed on
following cases :-
i. M.M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala
reported in (2000) 1 SCC 466.
ii. S.Nagraj Vs. State of Karnataka,
reported in 1993 Supp. (4)SCC 595.
iii. Green View Tea and Industries Vs.
Collector, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 122
and;
iv. High Court Bar Association, Allahabad
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267.
8. The party in person/Respondent no.1 supported
application. The learned advocate appearing for respondent
no.2/original plaintiffs heavily opposed the application.
9. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
advocates appearing for respective parties, this Court finds
that there is serious dispute amongst family members.
Brothers and sisters are fighting amongst themselves and
leaving no stone untouched in bringing hurdles for smooth
resolution of dispute through due process of law. Writ Petition
No.2598 of 2026 was filed before this Court impugning the
order passed by learned District Judge in Misc. Civil Appeal
5 RA 65.26.odt
no.128 of 2023 arising out of interim injunction order passed
in partition suit, which is pending since 2018 and could not
reach to stage of hearing. In this backdrop, learned District
Judge, while disposing of Misc. Civil Appeal No.128 of 2023
observed in paragraph no.19, as under :-
“Learned advocate appearing for the appellant argued that
Special Civil Suit no.39 of 2018 is pending since long and,
therefore, it is necessary to issue directions to expedite the
hearing. To this, the respondent no.1 submit that, he is ready
to lead the evidence. As such, this is a fit case to issue
directions in this respect.”
10. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of with directions
to decide pending suit within six months. Respondent no.1
herein had filed Review Application no.4 of 2025, particularly,
on the ground that directions to expedite suit could not have
been given as the review petitioner had never pleaded for
expeditious trial of suit nor such submission was made in oral
arguments. The learned District Judge observed in paragraph
nos.13 and 14 of the order dated 3.2.2026 passed in Review
Application no.4 of 2025 as under :-
“13. While deciding the above aspect, it
appears that having perused record and
proceeding of E-file M.C.A. No.128 of 2023, it
shows that the present applicant, who was the
6 RA 65.26.odt
respondent no.1, has filed written say to the
above Misc. Civil Appeal i.e. 4.4.2025. The
para no.vi) of the said say shows “the
respondent no.1 says and submit that the
present respondent no.1 is continuously under
threat and pressure. If the present appellant
or present respondent no.5 are given free hand
over the properties without there being trial
and inquiry finding the facts of genuineness of
the documents being proposed to be read in
evidence then this would defeat the very
purpose of the suit. The denial of injunction as
granted by the learned trial court would denial
of the evidence even before it is led. The
plaintiff is ready to commence the trial of the
suit. Making the order that suit be tried in
specified time will suffice the purpose of the
parties.” From the aforesaid submission it
clearly shows that the present applicant was
the respondent no.1 in the said miscellaneous
civil appeal has also made submissions for the
suit be tried in specified time and therefore,
the submission of applicant regarding no
pleading made regarding specific time is not
worth to be considered.
14. It is pertinent that the respondent no.1
i.e. appellant in the M.C.A. 128 of 2023 has not
denied that no such submission made
regarding the direction to dispose of the
Special Civil Suit within the stipulated time.
The applicant also produced documents along-
with application, but either those are not
helpful to decide the above controversy and in
this respect submission of learned Advocate
for respondent no.1 that no new evidence can
be considered while deciding such review
application is also worth to be considered.”
7 RA 65.26.odt
11. During course of hearing of writ petition no.2598 of
2026 before this Court, certain allegations were made against
conduct of proceeding by learned District Judge and rival
parties. However, this Court found that partition suit, which
was pending since 2018, needs to be expeditiously decided so
as to give quietus to the dispute amongst family members.
This Court observed that “innocuous directions given by the
learned District Judge would not prejudice petitioners at all
and therefore refused to entertain the writ petition.”
12. It is true that during course of hearing of writ petition,
reference was made to observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of High Court Bar Association (supra),
wherein it has been observed that routine directions for time
bound disposal ought not have been issued unless exceptional
reasons are recorded. Learned District Judge, while issuing
directions for expeditious disposal, had recorded the reasons
that partition suit is pending since 2018 and looking to the
nature of litigation, directions were given in the interest of
parties. This Court found no reason to interfere in the
discretion exercised by learned District Judge in peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case. In this backdrop, no good
ground can be made out to review or recall the order passed by
this Court. Petitioners are aggrieved by decision of this Court,
8 RA 65.26.odt
which is arrived after considering the contentions and material
relied by the petitioners, they may have remedy to challenge
order on merit, but power of review cannot be exercised.
Further, if petitioners feels that their right to defend suit is
prejudiced in any manner because of such directions, they can
move appropriate application for extension of time or even
Presiding Officer of Trial Court can take up such recourse. The
directions for expeditious disposal of proceeding are always
given looking to the interest of parties, however, it does not
construe to suppress or obstruct right of a party to defend the
case. Despite such directions, the Court, who is in-charge of
the trial is not expected to drag the party thereby curtailing
lawful rights to lead necessary evidence or take necessary steps
to defend his interest. The Trial Court is expected to decide
proceeding in time bound manner by giving sufficient
opportunity to parties.
13. So far as powers of review are concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Lily Thomas and others Vs.
Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6
Supreme Court Cases 224, observed that the ‘review is
not an appeal in disguise. Power of review can be exercised
for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such
9 RA 65.26.odt
powers can be exercised within limits of statute dealing with
exercise of power.’
14. In the present case, no ground for reviewing order is
made out. No error apparent on the face of record, which can
be said to have occurred on the basis of clear ignorance or
disregard of provisions of law is brought to notice of this court.
In this backdrop, this Court finds no merit in Review
Application and the same stands dismissed.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
Judge
…
aaa/-
Checking your session…