(1) 6-MCA-455-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 455/2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4427/2024 (D) UMESH TULSIRAM RAUT VS ZILLA PARISHAD, AKOLA THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S. Zia Quazi Advocate for the Applicant (s). CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 04, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. Review is sought on the count that the judgment in the case of Vishwas S/o Kisanrao Deokate v. Zilla Parishad, Akola & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 3931 of 2021) could not be pointed out because the issue of the undertaking given by the petitioner cropped up on the day the matter was heard. 3. We have gone through the order dated 25.03.2025 sought to be reviewed. 4. It appears from the impugned order that the applicant- original petitioner had submitted an undertaking with the Respondent-Employer. This undertaking was not filed by the applicant-original petitioner, but was brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On the basis of the undertaking, the Court took a view that the issue involved is covered by the judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh, AIR 2016 SC 3523, and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 6. If this was the status, the argument of the petitioner that the issue of the undertaking cropped up suddenly is known to him to Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:11759-DB (2) 6-MCA-455-2025 be incorrect because the undertaking was given by the petitioner himself. It was his duty to place on record the aforesaid undertaking and to rely on Vishwas Deokate’s case (supra) to contend that the undertaking so given was general in nature and could not be relied upon to recover the amount. 7. Having not done so, it cannot be said that despite due diligence, the petitioner could not refer to the said judgment. There is, thus, no merit in the application. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya