The court also remarked that it was not told how the case fell within the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and “particularly how in these circumstances there can be said to have been ‘due diligence’ on the part of the BMC in finding the material”. THE BOMBAY High Court recently imposed costs of Rs 2 lakh on the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for seeking a review of its 2019 order in “abuse of process of court” and “without any substance” . The bench called BMC’s review plea as an “abuse of the process of a court”. The BMC sought review of the order in a lease dispute which was decided after considering an affidavit filed by one Sudhakar Ramkrishna Mahajan on behalf of the civic body.
A division bench of Justice Gautam S Patel and Justice Gauri V Godse on October 3 passed an order in the plea by the civic body seeking review of September 17, 2019 on the footing that after the said order, “someone in the estate department found documents that are of an even earlier vintage.” The court noted that the 2019 order was made after considering Mahajan’s affidavit on behalf of the BMC. After the BMC told the bench that the civic body and its officers ‘sifted’ through the archive record, the bench inquired as to why the sifting process was not possible before an affidavit in reply was filed and the same was ‘unclear’. Mahajan’s affidavit had said that he had “gone through the available relevant records pertaining to the matter” and he had ‘acquainted himself’ with the facts and circumstances of the present case.
“Now we are told in this review petition (by BMC) that Mahajan’s statements on the sworn affidavit are incorrect. Now we are told that there were records, but to which Mahajan could not have deposed.”
The court also remarked that it was not told how the case fell within the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and “particularly how in these circumstances there can be said to have been ‘due diligence’ on the part of the BMC in finding the material”.
“This petition is a gross abuse of the process of a court. The fact that it is done by the BMC only makes it worse. The review petition is entirely without substance. It is dismissed,” the bench held and directed the BMC to pay costs to the original petitioner.