23-CA-6924-26.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 23 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6924 OF 2026 IN RAST/12990/2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 12369 OF 2021 The Nanded Town Market Area House Building Co Operative Society Ltd Through Its Chairman VERSUS Nirmalabai Vishwanath Barde ...... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate for the Applicant ...... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 6 JULY, 2026 PER COURT : ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY: 1. By this Civil Application, the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the accompanying Review Application. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the Civil Application is allowed. The delay of 19 days in filing the Review Application stands condoned. ORDER IN REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.12990 OF 2026: 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.P. Katneshwarkar for the applicant. 2026:BHC-AUG:38480 23-CA-6924-26.odt 2 4. By the present Review Application, the applicant seeks review, recall and modification of the judgment and order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12369 of 2021. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that an error apparent on the face of the record has crept into the judgment under review. Inviting my attention to paragraphs 4 and 13 to 16 of the judgment, he submitted that two layout plans were available on record, namely the sanctioned layout plan of the year 1994 and the layout plan of 2001 prepared subsequently, which, according to him, came to be cancelled in the year 2002. It is contended that while deciding the writ petition, this Court proceeded on the basis of the layout plan of the year 1994 instead of the sanctioned layout plan of 2001, thereby recording observations contrary to the record. On this ground, it is prayed that the order dated 11.03.2026 be recalled and the writ petition. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel and have perused the order sought to be reviewed. 7. A perusal of paragraph 4 of the judgment would indicate that the same merely records the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition. Likewise, paragraphs 13 and 14 record the submissions canvassed on behalf of the respondent. The observations and findings of this Court are contained in paragraphs 15 and 16, which were recorded after 23-CA-6924-26.odt 3 considering the material and the layout plan placed before the Court. The contention now sought to be raised is essentially directed against the appreciation of the material considered while deciding the writ petition. It cannot be said that the findings recorded therein suffer from any patent error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 8. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not for rehearing the matter or re-appreciating the evidence already considered. The applicant, under the guise of seeking review, is virtually seeking reconsideration of the findings recorded by this Court on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction. 9. Having considered the grounds raised in the Review Application and the submissions advanced, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and order dated 11.03.2026 warranting its review or recall. 10. The Review Application is, therefore, devoid of merit. Hence, the Review Application stands dismissed. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane