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
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,
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
