Damodhar Devram Gawhane vs Indubai Namdeo Shivkari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Damodhar Devram Gawhane vs Indubai Namdeo Shivkari and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay in filing the review petition condoned (Interim Application No. 38634 of 2025 allowed); review petition rejected; any other pending application disposed of as infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order under review in the writ petition should be modified and the petition heard afresh on the ground that the land acquisition awards dated 31st March 1988 and 15th June 1989 were not pointed out to the Court when the petition was decided. +2 more

Court's answer

Nothing was shown to indicate that the land acquisition award dated 31st March 1988 was relevant to the allotment of alternate lands made pursuant to the award dated 15th June 1989; accordingly, no substance was found in the grounds raised in the review petition.

Ratio / Principle

The review petition does not warrant any interference, as none of the grounds raised satisfy the parameters for exercising the power of review.

Key takeaways

The Court concurred with learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 that the practice of filing a review petition by changing advocate stands deprecated, with the Apex Court imposing costs in such matters.obiter¶¶32
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the review petition was condoned.ratio¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Order of Gauri Godse, J. (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, dated 12th February 2026) rejecting Review Petition (ST.) No. 23198 of 2024, filed by respondent no. 3 of a decided writ petition through a new advocate. The applicant contended that the land acquisition awards dated 31st March 1988 and 15th June 1989 were not pointed out to the Court when the writ petition — which concerned orders of allotment of alternate lands pursuant to the award dated 15th June 1989 — was decided, and sought modification of the order under review and a fresh hearing. The Court held that nothing indicated the 31st March 1988 award was relevant to the allotments made under the 15th June 1989 award, and that none of the review grounds satisfied the parameters for exercising review jurisdiction. Delay in filing was condoned by way of Interim Application No. 38634 of 2025. Endorsing Tamilnadu Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr, (1997) 9 SCC 736, and referring to Shobha Bajirao Damodar Vs. Trira TNA Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Akola and Ors, 2008 Supreme (Bom) 1512, the Court deprecated the practice of instituting review petitions by changing advocates, such practice being visited with imposition of costs by the Apex Court. Any other pending application was disposed of as infructuous.

2-IA-38634-2025.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 38634 OF 2025

Swapnil

IN

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 23198 OF 2024

Damodhar Devram Gawhane. … Applicant/Petitioner

Vs.

Indubai Namdeo Shivkari

and Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Lengare Y. B., Mr. Sunny Sadafule for the applicant. Mr. Sachin Kada, for respondent no. 1 to 6. Mr. M. S. Bane, AGP for the Sate.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATE : 12^th February 2026

ORDER :

This review petition is filed on behalf of respondent

no.3 in the writ petition through a new advocate.

Learned advocate for the review petitioner submits that

the land acquisition award dated 31^st March 1988 and 15^th June 1989 were not pointed out to the court when the petition

was decided. He submits that since the earlier advocate did

not point out these facts, the order under review needs to be

modified and the petition needs to be heard afresh.

1/3

2-IA-38634-2025.docx

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 opposes

the review petition on the ground that the filing of this petition through the new advocate amounts to abuse of process of law. He submits that such practice is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court by imposing heavy cost. He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr¹ and decision of this court in Shobha Bajirao Damodar Vs. Trira TNA Krida and Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Akola and Ors.²

I have perused the judgment under review and the papers of the petition, the dispute in the petition was pertaining to the orders of allotment of alternate lands in view of the acquisition pursuant to the land acquisition award dated 15^th June 1989. There is nothing shown to indicate that the award dated 31^st March 1988 would be relevant, to the allotment of alternate lands made pursuant to the award dated 15^th June 1989. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the grounds raised in the review petition. The review petition does not warrant any interference as none of the

grounds raised in the review petition satisfy the parameters

for exercising the powers to review the order.

1 (1997) 9 SCC 736

2 2008 Supreme (Bom) 1512

2/3

2-IA-38634-2025.docx

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6 is right in pointing out the decision of the Apex Court, where such practice of filing a review petition by changing advocate is deprecated by imposing cost.

Since, there is delay in filing the review petition, the Interim Application No. 38634 of 2025 is filed for condonation of delay. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned.

For the reasons recorded above, the review petition is rejected.

Any other pending application, is disposed of as infructuous.

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

3/3