No stage exists between judgment reservation and pronouncement for new evidence; review lies only for apparent errors, not subsequent law changes.

ORDER

1. This review application has been filed seeking review of the Judgment/Order dated 11.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.74/2022(WZ) read-with Original Application No.75/2022(WZ) on the ground that the impugned order is based on the CRZ Notification 2011, which was in force at the time of filing of the application by the applicant. The draft CZMP 2019 was also brought on record in the Affidavit of Reply of CIDCO/review applicant dated 14/11/2022. In the meantime, when the application was reserved for orders on 15/09/2023, this Tribunal was armed with CZMP 2019, which was approved on 25/08/2023, regarding which this Tribunal was put to notice during the hearing on 15/09/2023 but the same could be published at that point of time. The CZMP 2019 map was published on 26/09/2023, which had the force of law and was applicable law for the purpose of consideration of the pending application, as the final order was not yet pronounced. It is clear that without taking into consideration the CZMP of 2019, this Tribunal has erroneously passed the impugned order referring to the NCSCM map arrived at on the basis of CZMP 2011.

2. On the other hand, from the side of respondent No.4- Navi Mumbai Environment Protection Society (applicant in Original Application No.74/2022), reply affidavit dated 13.04.2024 has been filed, wherein it is submitted that it is a settled position of law that there is no stage that exists between the reservation of judgment and the pronouncement of judgment, therefore, no application for additional evidence, let alone an independent affidavit, can be moved or filed after the arguments were heard/completed and after the OA was closed for Judgment. By virtue of this, the Tribunal having rejected the affidavit dated 10.10.2023 and having refused to bring the same on record, the review applicant-CIDCO cannot rely upon the said affidavit, in view of the law that no such affidavit/application could have been filed after closure of the argument and the matter having been reserved for pronouncement of the Judgment.

3. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar & Ors. [(1963) 5 SCR 946], wherein our attention is drawn to the following portions of the Judgment:-

“So far as So far as the case before us is concerned the order under appeal cannot be sustained even on the basis that the finding recorded in disposing of an application under O. IX, r. 7 would operate as res judicata when the same question of fact is raised in a subsequent application to set aside an ex parte decree under O. IX, r. 13. This is because it is not disputed that in order to operate as res judicata, the court dealing with the first matter must have had jurisdiction and competency to enertain and decide the issue. Adverting to the facts of the present appeal, this would primarily turn upon the proper construction of the terms of O. IX, r.7. The opening words of that rule are, as already seen, ’Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parts’. Now, what do these words mean? Obviously they assume that there is to be "a hearing" on the date to which the suit stands adjourned. If the entirety of the "hearing" of a suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under O. XX, r. 1, there is clearly no adjournment of "the hearing" of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the suit. It was precisely this idea that was expressed by the l