Bombay High Court
SHRI. NAMDEO DAGDU HINGEversusSHRI. RAMCHANDRA LAXMAN VAIRAGAR AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and the review petition was not maintainable.
Summary
The petitioner, Shri Namdeo Dagdu Hinge, filed a review petition challenging the order dated 4 March 2026 which directed him to deposit Rs. 2,000 in execution of a decree. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner had a valid justification for not complying with the decree dated 19 April 2014 and sought an opportunity to make the deposit. The Court examined whether any error apparent on the face of the record existed in the impugned order and whether the review petition was maintainable. It held that no such error was evident and that the petitioner had not raised any justification in the original petition or at the time of the order. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed as an appeal in disguise.
Issues considered
- Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 4 March 2026.
- Whether the review petition is maintainable given the absence of a raised justification in the original proceedings.
Subjects
- review petition
- error apparent on face of record
- civil procedure
- decree execution
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:29209
Renuka 3-RPW-70-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 70 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 4282 OF 2021
Shri. Namdeo Dagdu Hinge ...Petitioner
V/s.
Shri. Ramchandra Laxman Vairagar ...Respondents
and Ors
________________
Ms. K. S. Mahuli for Petitioner.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 16 JULY 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks review of the order
dated 4 March 2026.
2) I have heard Ms. Mahuli, the learned counsel appearing for
the Review Petitioner. She submits that the Petitioner may be granted an
opportunity to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,000/- in pursuance of the
decree. However, upon being queried by this Court as to whether there is
any error apparent on face of record in the order dated 4 March 2026, her
response is in the negative. She however submits that the Petitioner has
a valid justiAcation for not Aling the Petition immediately after passing
the order by the District Judge-1, Pune on 19 April 2014. If there was
Page No.1 of 2
16 JULY 2026
Renuka 3-RPW-70-2026.docx
indeed any justiAcation, the same ought to have pleaded in the Petition
and in any case brought to the notice of the Court when the Petition was
decided on 4 March 2026. The Review Petition is Aled and is argued as if
it is an appeal in disguise. There is no error apparent on face of record in
the order under review.
3) Review Petition is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.2 of 2
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 16 JULY 2026
Date: 17/07/2026 12:23:36
Checking your session…