-
by Admin
16 February 2026 1:47 PM
“Merely being aggrieved is not a ground for review; the petition must disclose an error so obvious that it stares from the record”— In a scathing rebuke of litigative overreach and procedural abuse, the Bombay High Court dismissed Review Petition, while imposing a cost of ₹50,000 for misusing judicial process under the guise of a review.
A Division Bench of Justices Kamal Khata and A.S. Gadkari declared that the petition was nothing more than an attempt to reargue facts already settled, seeking a disguised appeal of the Court’s earlier order dated 7th April 2025, which had directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of disputed property rights and facts.
“You Can't Call It Review Just Because You Disagree With the Judgment” — Court Warns Against Attempt to Re-Appraise Facts
The petitioner had challenged the previous order on the ground that it failed to consider factual aspects and erred in declining relief under Article 226. However, the Court categorically held that the scope of review is limited and does not permit re-hearing or reconsideration of facts already adjudicated.
Quoting Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated:
“It is well settled that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error… where there could reasonably be no two opinions.”
Justice Kamal Khata observed that the petitioner’s counsel failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, and instead attempted to divert the Court’s attention back to disputed facts, thus violating the boundaries of review jurisdiction.
“Re-Appraisal of Evidence Under the Guise of Review Is Impermissible”—Petitioner Found Abusing Legal Procedure
In harsh words directed at both the petitioner and the advocate, the Court referenced Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik [(2006) 4 SCC 78], holding that the Supreme Court has consistently barred re-hearing of matters through review petitions merely because a party is unhappy with the outcome.
The judgment states: “Paragraphs 7 to 13 of the Review Petition clearly indicate that it is an attempt to call upon this Court to reappraise the entire facts and reconsider our decision. This is impermissible.”
In fact, during oral arguments, the Bench asked a pointed question:
“What was the error apparent on the face of record in the Order?”
The advocate was unable to answer directly, instead reverting to factual arguments—prompting the Court to remark that this conduct was a disservice not only to the Court but also to her clients.
“Abuse of Process Will Not Be Tolerated—Costs of ₹50,000 Imposed to Deter Procedural Misuse”
In a strong message to litigants and lawyers alike, the Bench warned that indiscriminate filing of review petitions to buy time or prolong litigation would not go unpunished. The Court observed:
“Despite settled law, the Review Petitioner has attempted to abuse the process by taking liberty with the procedures of the Court, in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency.”
Citing Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar [(2017) 5 SCC 496], the Court noted that it is not merely discretionary but a judicial duty to deal firmly with such petitions that clog the system and waste judicial time.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the review with explicit condemnation and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner.
Courts Will Not Entertain Masked Appeals Disguised as Review Petitions
The Bombay High Court’s order reinforces a fundamental jurisprudential boundary—that review is not a tool for relitigation but a narrow window for correction of glaring errors. Once a matter is decided on facts, judicial hierarchy requires such disputes to be escalated by appeal, not rehashed via review.
The ruling sends a clear caution to litigants seeking second chances through procedural backdoors and emphasizes that Court time is not to be squandered on frivolous litigation tactics.
Date of Decision: 18th September 2025
