Review Petition No. 99 of 2007 · Bombay High Court

petitioners. The petitioners had challenged order dated 3.12.2004, rendered by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Parbhani, rejecting their application for condonation of delay in seeking restoration of the suit (RCS No.4/1999) which was dismissed in default on 17.1.2003. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the restoration application and declined to condone the delay. By the order dated 6.9.2005, this Court held that the learned Civil Judge had rightly viewed the matter and exercised his discretion judiciously. The learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner would submit that the delay was only of 69 days and was properly explained. He would submit that the order of this Court is required to be reviewed inasmuch as it is erroneous on face of it. I do not agree. The Review Petition can be considered only when there is an error apparent on face of the record. The Review Petition can not be considered likewise an appeal. The Court may take erroneous view of the matter but such error has to be rectified by the appellate authority and not by the Reviewing Court. Considering these aspects, the application is not within the parameters of Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. Consequently, the application is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners would be at liberty to file separate suit for the same relief inasmuch as they are claiming heirship rights. They will be entitled to maintain another suit as the cause of action based on their ownership rights is prima facie unabated. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) Dt.14.07.2009. asp/office/Review99.07