Bombay High Court
YASEEN DOST KHAN AND ORS.versusAJIT DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHARMILA U DESHMUKH
Holding
The review petition was dismissed as it raised fresh arguments and no apparent error was found in the original judgment.
Summary
The petitioners filed Review Petition No. 35352 of 2025 seeking a review of the High Court's judgment dated 21 February 2025 in First Appeal No. 1841 of 2024. They engaged new counsel and raised fresh arguments concerning delay, readiness and willingness, and a third‑party claim, which were not presented during the original appeal. The Court observed that the review petition merely sought to re‑argue matters already decided and that no error apparent on the face of the record existed. Citing the principle that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise, the Court held that the submissions constituted a new line of argument and therefore could not be entertained. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, while the accompanying interim application for condonation of delay was formally allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a review petition is maintainable when it raises fresh arguments not raised in the original appeal
- Whether the absence of an apparent error on the record precludes the grant of a review
Subjects
- review petition
- fresh arguments
- readiness and willingness
- specific performance
- delay
- condonation of delay
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
65-IA-13650-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.35352 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13650 OF 2025
Yaseen Dost Khan and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
Ajit Developers Private Limited and Ors. ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Aseem Naphade i/b. Mr. Shreyas Shete and Ms. Vilasini
Balasubramaniam, for the Applicants.
Mr. Rajesh N. Kachare, for the Respondents.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : JANUARY 13, 2026
P. C. :
1. By the present Review Petition, the Petitioners seeks review of
the judgment dated 21st February, 2025 passed in First Appeal No.
1841 of 2024.
2. The Review Petition has been filed by engaging different
Advocate and counsel on record. Time and again, this Court has noticed
that after judgment is passed, Review Petitions are filed by engaging
different Advocate and arguing counsel. The matter is been re-argued
by canvassing submissions which were not raised during the initial
Vishal Parekar
This is a corrected order as per Speaking to Minutes Order dated 17-01-2026.
1 of 3
65-IA-13650-2025.doc
hearing of the Appeal.
3. In the present case, Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the Review
Petitioners argued the aspect of delay, readiness and willingness.
However he would fairly concede that the submissions now being
canvassed were not canvassed during the earlier round of litigation.
Pointing out the averments in the Plaint, he would submit that the
agreement was executed on 19th January, 1995 and the first
communication was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants seeking
specific performance on 23rd August, 2023 and by raising the issue of
third party claiming vested interest in the subject property. He submits
that the Suit was filed on 16th February, 2005 with no explanation
whatsoever for the delay. He would further submit that it is necessary
for the Plaintiff to demonstrate readiness and willingness drawing
support from the decision in the case of Balraj Taneja and Another vs.
Sunil Madan and Another1. He would further submit that under the
agreement for sale, the manner of the payment of consideration was
set out in paragraph 1 and the obligation was of the Plaintiff which has
not been satisfied.
4. I have considered the submissions and gone through the
judgment under review.
5. This Court, while passing the judgment of 21 st February, 2025 has
1 (1999) 8 SCC 396.
Vishal Parekar
This is a corrected order as per Speaking to Minutes Order dated 17-01-2026.
2 of 3
65-IA-13650-2025.doc
dealt with all submissions which were canvassed by the then counsel. It
is not the case of the Review Petitioner that there is any error apparent
on the face of record and what is sought to be canvassed is completely
new line of argument by pointing out the aspect which was not argued
during the earlier hearing. This Court has taken into consideration the
aspect of readiness and willingness and has specifically held in favour
of the Plaintiff. Having done so, it is now not open for the Plaintiff to
re-argue the matter by canvassing fresh arguments. The review cannot
be an appeal in disguise. The submissions canvassed are grounds of the
Appeal. Hence, no case has been made out for review.
6. Review Petition stands dismissed.
IA No. 13650 of 2025 :-
7. As the Court is not inclined to entertain the Review Petition, the
Application for condonation of delay is allowed formally.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Vishal Parekar
This is a corrected order as per Speaking to Minutes Order dated 17-01-2026.
3 of 3
Checking your session…