( 1 ) ra204.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 204 OF 2024 IN SA/334/2018 VITHAL FAKKAD TAKE DIED LRS VIJAY AND ANOTHER VERSUS RAJESH RAWAJI ALIAS TAKE LRS KANTABAI AND OTHERS Ms. M.V. Narwade with Mr. G.R. Syed, Advocate for the applicants. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 29.09.2026 PC :- 01. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants. This application is filed seeking review of order dated 01.12.2023 passed in Second Appeal No.334 of 2018. This Court recorded in the order that there is no substantial question of law made out in the appeal and dismissed the appeal. Learned Advocate for the applicant argued on factual position, which is already considered by this Court. It is case of the applicants that this Court has proceeded on the submission by the respondents that the property No. 254 and property No. 52 are one and the same. It is submitted that in-fact these two are independent and different properties. This Court only on relying on submissions of the respondent has dismissed the Second appeal. 2026:BHC-AUG:45789 ( 2 ) ra204.24 02. There is nothing to show that there are two distinct properties involved in the Second Appeal. In the order this Court has specifically observed that only question of interpretation of the will-deed was considered as specific question of law of interpretation given by lower Appellate Court was not found to be perverse or incorrect. On recording such finding, the second appeal was dismissed. No case is made out by the applicants showing that there is error on the face of record. There is no substance in the application. No ingredients of section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code are made out. 03. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Anr. [2025 INSC 1080] in Civil Application arising out of SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025, has laid down the parameters for entertaining the review application. Paragraph No.15 & 17 of the said judgment reads as under:- “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170]. ( 3 ) ra204.24 15.2. Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.[Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389]. 15.3. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715]. 15.4. The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224]. 15.5. The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. [Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663] Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.[Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 1909]. xxx “17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows: 17.1. The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record.8 Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.9 An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR (1960) SC 137]. ( 4 ) ra204.24 17.3. Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories. [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR (1954) SC 526].” 04. In view of the above, this Review Application stands dismissed. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Sep26/ra204.24