( 1 ) ca3814.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3814 OF 2026 IN RAST/8381/2026 PUNDLIK NAGNATH DASHETWAR THR LRS JANABAI P. DASHETWAR DIED DELETED AND OTHERS VERSUS BABA MALHARI DHANGAR DIED PER LRS MALHARI BABA DHANGAR DIED THR LRS PRABHAKAR M KADRALE AND ORS Mr. S.G. Dodya, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, AGP for the respondent-State. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 29.09.2026 PC :- CIVIL APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 01. This Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay of 58 days caused in filing Review Application. For the reasons stated in the application and since the delay is of hardly 58 days, the same stands condoned. The Civil Application is allowed. The Review Application be registered. REVIEW APPLICATION 01. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants. This Review Application is filed by the learned Advocate, who has not argued the Writ Petition, order of which is sought to be reviewed. 2026:BHC-AUG:45753 ( 2 ) ca3814.26 02. The only point canvassed before this Court is that while passing the judgment, this Court has not considered the date of 04.02.1954, which is crucial date, so far as protected tenancy is concerned. This Court has considered the date of 20.07.1955, which is the crucial date for other tenants. He thus submits that admittedly prior to 04.02.1954, present applicants were in possession on that date. He submits that said observation of this Court is not correct position of law and thus there is error apparent on the face of record. 03. This Court has considered this argument. However, there is nothing on record to show that this was argued. Such ground Nos. 2 to 7 are raised in the Review Application for the first time, which were not taken in the petition and in any case it was not argued. 04. 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 ( 3 ) ca3814.26 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]. 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 ( 4 ) ca3814.26 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]. 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].” 05. In view of the above, this Court, thus, finds that there is no error apparent on the face of record. No case is made out to entertain this Review Application invoking section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no merit in the Review Application and the same stands dismissed. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Sep26/ca3814.26