Gujarat High Court
Kishankumar Babubhai ... vs Bharatkumar Babubhai Parmar on 2 May, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/2026/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2026 of
2025
In F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11308 of 2025
With
F/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11308 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 705 of 2023
==========================================================
KISHANKUMAR BABUBHAI CHAMAR(CHANGECHA) & ORS.
Versus
BHARATKUMAR BABUBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DM DEVNANI(5880) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
SHIVANG P JANI(8285) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS. SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR. DHRUV CHAUDHARY FOR MS NALANDA D ACHARYA(13355) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 02/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 479 days in preferring the captioned F/Misc. Civil Application No. 11308 of 2025 (For Review).
2. The Review Application emanates from the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in captioned Letters Patent Appeal. The Co-ordinate Bench by the said judgment and order, while allowing the appeal filed by the appellants, in which the present applicants were arraigned as respondent nos.3 to 11, had issued the directions to exclude them from the merit list. The said judgment and order was subject matter of challenge by the present Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 00:45:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2026/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined applicants-original respondent nos.3 to 11 by filing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27101 of 2023. The same was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2023 by observing thus:
"Heard Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners.
We see no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed."
3. Against the same order, a Review Application being Review Petition(Civil) No.231/2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27101 of 2023 was filed before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2024 by observing thus:
"We have gone through the review petition and the connected papers. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
4. After failing in the both proceedings before the Supreme Court, the applicants have filed the Review Application, in which, there is delay of 479 days. In both the aforesaid orders before the Supreme Court, it emerges that the Supreme Court has not granted any liberty to file the Review Application on the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023.
5. Learned advocate Mr. D. M. Devnani for the applicants has submitted that after the aforesaid judgment and order was passed, the present applicants-original respondent nos.3 to 11 were terminated, and hence, they were constrained to file a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9754 of 2024, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.07.2024. Against which, Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 00:45:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/2026/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/05/2025 undefined the applicants have preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.101 of 2025, in which, the notice is issued to other side. Thus, it is submitted that since the observations, which were made by the Co-ordinate Bench in the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023 would come in their way, and would be detrimental to their interest, the delay may be condoned.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Dhruv Chaudhary appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the present application and has submitted that the Review Application itself is not maintainable, and it is urged that no orders may be passed.
7. The aforementioned facts are not in dispute.
8. The captioned Review Application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, after the dismissal of Special Leave Petition as well as Review Petition before the Supreme Court, there has been delay of 479 days. Subsequently, after the aforesaid judgment and order, the applicants are already terminated in services. The Writ Petition has been rejected by the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal is at the admission stage. Hence, looking to the overall facts, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 479 days caused in filing the Review Application. The Civil Application (For Condonation of Delay) stands rejected. Accordingly, F/Misc. Civil Application No. 11308 of 2025 stands disposed of.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/3 Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Mon May 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue May 06 00:45:25 IST 2025