Delta Central Co Operative Housing Soc ... vs Balaji Corporation And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 9199 Bom

Bombay High Court

Delta Central Co Operative Housing Soc ... vs Balaji Corporation And Ors on 22 December, 2025

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2025:BHC-AS:56715
                                                                       12-ia38652-2025 in wp14955-2024.doc


                             AGK
                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.38652 OF 2025
                                                               IN
                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.14955 OF 2024

                             Matruchaya Cooperative Housing
                             Society Ltd., through it's Chairman
                             Popatlal C. Bagmar                           ... Applicant.
                                         V/s.
      ATUL                   Yashodeep Construction Company,
      GANESH
      KULKARNI               thorugh it's partner Vijay
      Digitally signed by
      ATUL GANESH
      KULKARNI
                             Jawaharlal Jain                              ... Respondent
      Date: 2025.12.22
      18:04:38 +0530




                             Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar with Mr. Shubham
                             Suryawanshi for the applicant.
                             Mr. Shrivallabh S. Panchpor for the respondent/
                             petitioner in WP.


                                                           CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                           DATED    : DECEMBER 22, 2025
                             P.C.:

1. The respondent society has moved this review application seeking recall of the judgment and order dated 26 September 2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 14955 of 2024.

2. The foundation of the application is procedural. The society states that it was served with notice of the writ petition. On the returnable date, the matter was adjourned to a distant date. The society then decided to engage an Advocate. According to the applicant, because of the long adjournment, the concerned officer lost track of the listing. The matter thereafter came to be

12-ia38652-2025 in wp14955-2024.doc

adjourned from time to time. The society asserts that it forwarded the vakalatnama, relevant papers, and a resolution dated 2 October 2025. Before these steps could fructify into effective representation, the writ petition was taken up on 26 September 2025 and was allowed. On this basis, the society seeks recall of the final order.

3. When the application is examined closely, the real reason pleaded is the failure of the applicant to engage an Advocate in time. The record, however, tells a different story. The society was served with notice of the writ petition in November 2024. From that date till 26 September 2025, a period of several months elapsed. During this entire period, no Advocate was engaged and no appearance was caused before this Court. A litigant who has notice of proceedings carries a continuing duty to remain vigilant. An adjournment does not suspend that duty. Internal lapses, change of officers, or loss of recollection of dates are matters within the control of the litigant. Such reasons do not constitute sufficient cause. Paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e) of the application, therefore, do not disclose any ground which would justify recalling a final judgment duly passed after hearing.

4. Learned Advocate for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 1. He submitted that the power of recall, particularly of witnesses, must be exercised with restraint. According to him, such power cannot be used to repair defects in a party's case. By drawing attention to the cross examination of the petitioner, he argued that the attempt to

12-ia38652-2025 in wp14955-2024.doc

reopen the matter is only to fill gaps which became apparent after the judgment.

5. The reliance on Bagai Construction does not advance the applicant's case. In that decision, the Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the application for recall was moved after final arguments had concluded, after the matter was heard on several occasions, and after the judgment was reserved. The Court found that the application was a belated attempt to avoid an adverse judgment and to improve the case by introducing material which ought to have been placed earlier. It was in that factual backdrop that the Supreme Court held that even inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to permit such a course. The ratio of the judgment is grounded in discipline of procedure and finality of adjudication.

6. In the present case, this Court has already considered these principles while passing the original order. Paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the judgment under review reflect the same core reasoning which weighed with the Supreme Court in Bagai Construction. The applicant had due notice. It had adequate time. It failed to act with diligence. The order was not passed behind its back but in the face of its continued absence. No mistake, no inadvertent error, and no patent illegality is shown on the face of the record. Review jurisdiction is narrow. It cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to undo the consequences of one's own inaction.

7. For these reasons, no ground is made out to recall the judgment and order dated 26 September 2025.

12-ia38652-2025 in wp14955-2024.doc

8. The interim application, therefore, stands rejected.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)