HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
RAMKRUSHNA S/O ABHAJI BORKAR – Appellant
Versus
NASEEM KHAN DILDAR KHAN AND ANOTHER – Respondent
CAO 136/2021
1 cao136.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 136 OF 2021
IN
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) ST.NO. 976 OF 2021
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 11 OF 2018 (D)
(RAMKRUSHNA ABHAJI BORKAR...VS.. NASEEM KHAN DILDAR KHAN & 5 OTH.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
Court'
s or Judge'
s orders
appearances, Court'
s orders of directions
and Registrar'
s orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.V.Sohoni, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms Mayuri Deshmukh, A.P.P. for Non-applicant Nos.3 & 4.
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2021.
Heard.
While considering Civil Application No. 21 of
2021 this Division Bench (Z.A.Haq & Amit B. Borkar, JJ) has
taken a view that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
as the application seeking review of the judgment/order
passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would
also lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not be applicable,
however, the applicant, seeking review of the judgment/
order will have to explain the delay /latches in the review
application itself. We find that the explanation given by the
applicant in Civil Application should be accepted and hence,
there is no impediment in considering the review application.
The Civil Application No. 136 of 2021 is disposed
accordingly.
2 cao136.21.odt
MISC.CIVIL APPLN.ST.NO.976 OF 2021
Heard.
The review is sought in respect of order dated 26th
February 2020. The applicant is not able to point out how
the applicant is aggrieved by the directions issue by this
Court. The limited direction which was issued by this Court
was a direction to Municipal Council to find out as to whether
the user of the plot is in violation of the permission granted.
It is for the Municipal Council to decide as to whether there is
any violation or not. If there is any order passed by the
Municipal Council, which affects the rights of the applicant,
the applicant will have liberty to challenge the said order.
There is no error apparent on the face of the record.
The Miscellaneous Civil Application is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(AMIT B. BORKAR, J) ( Z.A.HAQ, J.)
RRaut..