Gujarat High Court
Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki vs Mayursinh Bhupatsinh Vaghela on 19 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4833/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4833 of
2025
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2252 of 2025
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2252 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 588 of 2025
==========================================================
POONAMSINH BABAJI SOLANKI
Versus
MAYURSINH BHUPATSINH VAGHELA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
CORIN M CHRISTIE(7323) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 5,6,7,8
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4833 OF 2025:
Delay of 103 days in filing the Review Application has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay of 103 days is hereby condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to the Review Application. Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:07:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4833/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined ORDER IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2252 OF 2025:
1. This review application has been filed with the delay of 103 days through an advocate who did not appear in the original proceedings namely the Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Arguments are sought to be advanced on the merits of the case of the appellants, whose appeal has been allowed with the judgment and order dated 21.4.2025, recording the conduct of the original petitioner that false affidavit had been filed by the original petitioner before this Court. An advocate, who has not conducted the proceedings, either before the Writ Court or the Appellate Court, would not be in a position to make any submission on the review application, that too, with regard to the merits of the case.
3. We may further note that the review applicant has approached the Apex Court challenging the judgment under review and the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:07:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/4833/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined No. 16737 of 2025 has been dismissed after arguments at length when it was withdrawn by the petitioner therein-
review applicant herein.
4. Moreover, no good ground has been made out to seek the review or recall of the order wherein we have specifically recorded as to how the original petitioner/ review applicant misused the process of the Court.
5. The prayer made by the review applicant to seek the recall of the cost imposed in the judgment under review and initiation of perjury proceedings, cannot be entertained.
6. Noticing the above, the review application is dismissed being devoid of merits.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) SAJ GEORGE Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SAJ GEORGE(HC01069) on Tue Sep 23 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 23 23:07:47 IST 2025