Bombay High Court
RIYAZ SAJJAN AND ANRversusJEHANGIR DINSHAW IRANI AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
A review petition filed through a different advocate and seeking to introduce a document previously admitted as non‑existent cannot be entertained.
Summary
The petitioners filed a review petition challenging the High Court's order dated 27 March 2026 in Writ Petition No. 15677 of 2025. The Court noted that the review was filed through counsel who had not argued the original petition, a practice the Supreme Court has discouraged. The petitioners also attempted to introduce a copy of a 1997 Shop Act licence that they had previously failed to produce and had admitted in cross‑examination that it did not exist. The Court held that the alleged document was non‑existent and its belated production raised doubts about authenticity, rendering the review petition an attempt to relitigate matters already decided. Consequently, the Court found no valid ground for a review and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a review petition can be filed through counsel who did not argue the original petition
- Whether the belated production of a document previously admitted as non‑existent warrants a review of the earlier order
Subjects
- review petition
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- advocate representation
- document production
- Shop Act licence
- procedural law
- order dismissal
Judgment
Renuka 902-RPW-59-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 59 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 15677 OF 2025
Riyaz Sajjan and Anr. ...Petitioners
In the matter between.
Mr. Riyaz Sajjan and Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Jehangir Dinshaw Irani and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Khushnood Akhtar, Mr. Shivaji Nirmale, Mr. Hamza Shaikh and Shifa
Faruqui i/b Shama Shinde for Petitioners.
Ms. Pratibha Shelake for Respondents.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 10 APRIL 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition is ?led seeking review of the order dated 27
March 2026.
2) It must be observed at the very outset that this Court does
not appreciate ?ling of Review Petition through the Advocate, who did
not argue the main Petition. The practice of seeking review of orders
passed by Courts by engaging another Advocate has been deprecated
repeatedly by Supreme Court.
Page No.1 of 2
10 APRIL 2026
Renuka 902-RPW-59-2026
3) Leaving aside the above aspect, I otherwise do not ?nd any
valid reason to entertain the present Review Petition. Alongwith Review
Petition, now a copy of Shop Act License of the year 1997 is sought to be
produced. In para 16 of the order under Review, this Court speci?cally
observed that the Petitioner had failed to produce the documents
alongwith with the Petition, which were sought to be tendered before the
Appellate Court alongwith Application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the
Code. To ?ll up that lacuna, now copy of Shop Act License of 1997 is
sought to be ?led alongwith the Review Petition. However, in paragraph
17 of the order, this Court had noted the fact that the Petitioners were
cross-examined and during such cross-examination their witness was
called upon to produce Shop Act License. A speci?c admission was given
about non-existence of any such document. Therefore, in para 17 of the
order under review, this Court has taken into consideration the fact that
a nonexistent document was directly sought to be produced before the
Appellate Court raising serious doubt about its authenticity. Points
sought to be raised are already decided. Review is sought as if it is an
appeal in disguise. In my view therefore no case is made out for review of
order dated 27 March 2026.
4) Review Petition is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No.2 of 2
10 APRIL 2026
Checking your session…