Bombay High Court
SMITA MADHAV DEO AND ANRversusPANDIT KAUTIK PAWAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as there is no error apparent on the face of the record and fresh points cannot be considered in a review.
Summary
The petitioners, Smita Madhav Deo and another, filed a review petition seeking to overturn the High Court's order dated 12 February 2026 in Writ Petition No. 7111 of 2023. The respondents, Pandit Kautik Pawar and others, opposed the review. The Court examined the submissions and found no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. It observed that the review petition introduced new arguments based on a sale deed that were not raised before the original order and therefore amounted to an appeal in disguise. Consequently, the Court held that the order could not be reviewed on fresh points and dismissed the review petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 12 February 2026 is liable to be reviewed on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record.
- Whether a review petition can introduce fresh arguments or evidence not raised before the original order.
Subjects
- review petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
- error apparent on face of record
- fresh arguments
- appeal in disguise
Judgment
Sonali Mane 31-RPW-116-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 116 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 7111 OF 2023
Smita Madhav Deo And Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
Pandit Kautik Pawar And Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Jayendra Khairnar a/w Ms. Gauri Kulkarni for Petitioners.
Mr. Pratik Sabrad for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 29 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C. :
1) The Petition is filed seeking review of the Order dated
12 February 2026.
2) I have heard Mr. Khairnar, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioners and Mr. Sabrad, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
3) After having considered the submissions canvassed by
Mr. Khairnar, this Court is unable to trace any error apparent on the
face of record in the Order dated 12 February 2026. The order under
MANE
SONALI
review is passed after considering the submissions canvassed on behalf
DILIP
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP ___Page No.1 of 2___
Date: 2026.10.01
14:25:38 +0530
29 September 2026
Sonali Mane 31-RPW-116-2026.docx
of the Petitioners when the Petition was heard and decided. The
present Review Petition is filed as if it is an appeal in disguise.
Mr. Khairnar has attempted to canvass additional points before me by
relying on the concerned sale deed, which were not argued when order
under review was passed on 12 February 2026. The Order cannot be
reviewed on points not argued earlier. No case is made out for review of
the order dated 12 February 2026.
4) The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
___Page No.2 of 2___
29 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.