ca21.20-1-12-02.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

Civil Application (CAO) NO.21 of 2021 IN Misc. Civil Application St.No.5757/2020

IN

Writ Petition No.7009/2019 (D)

Laxmikant Sambhaji Khade Versus The State of Maharashtra and another

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

Court'

s or Judge'

s Order

Coram, appearances, Court'

s Orders

or directions and Registrar'

s order

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri M.M. Sudame, Advocate for applicant.

Ms. Mayuri Deshmukh, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.

CORAM : Z. A. HAQ AND

AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 08.02.2021.

The applicant, who is the original petitioner in Writ Petition

has filed this application seeking condonation of delay of 23 days in

filing the application for review of the judgment delivered in Writ

Petition No.7009 of 2019 on 20^thJanuary 2020. The application for

condonation of delay is based on the assumption that Article 124 of the

Limitation Act applies to the judgment delivered by the High Court in

the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2.

During the course of hearing, a query was made to the

advocate for the applicant as to whether Article 124 of the Limitation

Act is applicable to the application seeking review of the judgment

passed in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

ca21.20-1-12-02.odt

2

India. Since a question regarding the applicability of the provisions of

the Limitation Act to the applications seeking review of the judgment

delivered in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India arises in a number of matters, we heard Shri Sudame, learned

Advocate for the applicant extensively on the said point.

3.

Shri Sudame, the learned Advocate for the applicant placed

reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.

Tilokchand Motichand and others Vs. H.B.Munshi and another reported

in 1969 (1) SCC 110 and also relied on an unreported order of this

Court in Civil Application No.(CAO) No.44 of 2018 in Misc.Civil

Application Stamp No.17327 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.4974 of 2014

in the case of (Ganesh Ramdas Patil Vs Buldana Zilla Dudh Utpadak

Sah. Sangh and Others) submitted that the learned Single Judge of this

Court (Z.A.Haq, J.) after extensively considering the law on the point,

has taken a view that Article 124 of the Limitation Act does not govern

application seeking review of the judgment delivered in the Writ Petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, filing an

application for condonation of delay is not necessary.

4.

We have reflected over the said issue and, in our opinion, the

issue involved being of seminal importance, it needs to be scrutinized

more extensively.

ca21.20-1-12-02.odt

3

5. Article 124 of Schedule of the Limitation Act, provides for a

period of limitation for review of judgment/order by a Court other than

the Supreme Court, to be 30 days from the date of the decree or order.

6.

Since we are dealing with the issue about the applicability of

the Limitation Act to an application for review of the judgment passed in

exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is

necessary to discuss nature of power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, is an extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction

bestowed on the High Court by the Constitution of India, 1950.

No period of the limitation is prescribed under the Limitation

Act, 1963 or otherwise for the exercise of inherent powers under Article

226 of the Constitution of India . However, this would not mean that

the aspect of laches would be ign