KIRIT ENTERPRISES REFRIGERATION PVT.LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA THR CENTRAL RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION AND ORS

                                                                                   1-IA-13394-2025 @.doc




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           Digitally
           signed by
           HUSENBASHA
                                        INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13394 of 2025
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN    NADAF                                         IN
NADAF      Date:
           2026.09.08
           20:21:48
                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 4611 OF 1995
           +0530



                        Kirit Enterprises Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd.           ...Applicant/Petitioner
                               Versus
                        The Union of India and Others                       ...Respondents

                                                         ***
                        Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Aneish Jadhav, Sanjeel Kadam, Netra
                        Jagtap, Smiti Sathe i/b. Kadam and Co. for Applicant/Petitioner.
                        Mr. R. V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. R. P. Ojha for Respondent
                        Nos. 1 & 2.
                                                         ***

                                                                   CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                                   DATE      : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                        P.C. :

                        1.       Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                        2.       By this application, the Writ Petitioner is seeking to recall the
                        order dated 08.10.2025 passed by this Court (Coram : Shri. Rajesh S.
                        Patil,    J.)   by    which    various      civil   applications,      especially
                        CA/2777/2004 was disposed of as not surviving.

                        3.       Learned     counsel   for   the    Applicant     pointed      out     that
                        CA/2777/2004 was filed by the Petitioner to amend and add exhibits
                        and pleadings to the petition. He submitted that those prayers do not
                        seem to have been considered in order dated 08.10.2025 and
                        therefore, the order disposing of CA/2777/2004 needs to be recalled
                        and the application needs to be heard on its own merits. It is further

                        Husen                                      1
                                                    1-IA-13394-2025 @.doc




submitted that when CA/2777/2004 was pending, it was already
directed that it will be heard along with writ petition. He states on
instructions that he is restricting the prayer in this application only
for CA/2777/2004.

4.      Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the
prayer of recall of the order is akin to seeking review/modification of
the order dated 08.10.2025 and therefore it would lie before same
learned Single Judge, under an administrative order. He relied on
Chapter 13, Rule 3 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules,
1960 for said submission.

5.      On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 opposed the contention that this application
must be heard by the same Judge. Contending that this application
cannot be treated as for review or modification, it is urged that what
is ultimately prayed is recall of the earlier order by which many civil
applications were disposed of without considering CA/2777/2004.
On instructions, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents, has
conceded and submitted that CA/2777/2004 can be heard on its own
merits along with the writ petition because indeed it was not
considered while passing order dated 08.10.2025. He submitted that
the writ petition itself is pending from 1995 and needs to be taken up
immediately. He submitted that under concurrent findings, the
Petitioner’s eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction Of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is the issue involved.

6.      I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.


Husen                                 2
                                                     1-IA-13394-2025 @.doc




7.      On bare perusal, it is clear that order dated 08.10.2025 was
passed while considering an interim application for fixing early date
of hearing. The order does not even remotely indicate or make a
reference to any prayer of amendment (as made in CA/2777/2004)
being considered. Respondents have also conceded to this position
and has fairly taken stand that CA/2777/2004 can be heard
alongwith writ petition.

8.      Perusal of the present application indicates that the main
prayer in the application is only for recall of order dated 08.10.2025.
On reading present application as whole, I do not find that the prayer
includes any prayer of review or modification.

9.      The Court is informed that after filing present application, the
Writ Petitioner has also filed in August 2026, an appeal in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court challenging the same Order dated 08.10.2025. It is
also informed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been moved
and no order has been passed.

10.     Firstly, there is apparently no explanation why and how the
Petitioner/Applicant during pendency of this application for recall,
has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the
same order. Since this application is filed prior in point of time and
since nothing is brought to the notice of the Court that Hon’ble
Supreme Court has in any way barred this Court from considering the
present application, this application is taken up for disposal of merits.

11.     As is already clarified above, the main prayer in the application
is only for recall of order dated 08.10.2025 and there is no element

Husen                                  3
                                                      1-IA-13394-2025 @.doc




of review/modification involved. In that view of the matter, the
concerned Rule from the Appellate Side Rules, relied upon by the
Applicant, will not help the Applicant.

12.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is
allowed. The order dated 08.10.2025 passed in CA/2777/2004 is
recalled. It is directed the CA/2777/2004 shall be heard along with
petition.

13.     Place   WP/4611/1995    along     with    pending     civil/interim
applications, including CA/2777/2004, on 30.09.2026 at 3.00 p.m.
for hearing.

                                                 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Husen                                 4