Poonamsinh Babaji Solanki vs Mayursinh Bhupatsinh Vaghela
2025 Latest Caselaw 6805 Guj

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.

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

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