Financial difficulties do not warrant judicial review unless errors on record are evident.

O R D E R Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J Heard C.M. Appln. No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The review petition has been filed with a delay of 44 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out. Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the review petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The present Review Petition, filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , challenges the interim order dated 21.08.2025 in W.A. No. 1832/2019, whereby the petitioner-Co-operative Bank was directed to deposit the gratuity payable to the first respondent before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks.

3. W.A. No. 1832/2019 was filed by the petitioner herein, challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 27331/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the petitioner herein to release the entire gratuity amount to the first respondent within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

3.1 Earlier, the petitioner had filed an application seeking an extension of time to comply with the interim order dated 21.08.2025 on the ground that the appellant-Co-operative Bank was experiencing severe financial constraints and would not be in a position to comply with the order dated 21.08.2025. Accordingly, vide the interim order dated 14.10.2025 in I.A. No. 1/2025, and after considering the difficulties faced by the petitioner-Co-operative Bank, four weeks’ time was granted to deposit the amount as per the directions dated 21.08.2025.

3.2 At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking a review of the order dated 21.08.2025 on the ground that the financial condition of the Bank is very precarious. Therefore, the petitioner would not be able to deposit the amount and have, at the same time, prayed for an extension of time of six months to make the deposit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would not press the review petition but requests that the time to deposit the amount may be enlarged to six months from today.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that ample time and opportunity have already been granted; however, there has been no communication regarding the steps taken to implement the order. Therefore, the review petition may be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. From a perusal of the order, it is evident that this Court has not directed the petitioner to make payment directly to the first respondent herein, but to deposit the amount with the Registry of this Court, so that when the Writ Appeal is finally decided, the amount can be adjusted accordingly. Moreover, in the Review Petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not pointed out any apparent error on the face of the record that would warrant interference in the matter.

6.1 In the considered opinion of this Court, none of the grounds, available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case ofS. Bhagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Benga