Sayyad Shahzad S/O Sayyad Sabir v. Sayyad Zuber S/O Sayyad Murtuja

2025:BHC-NAG:9350 1 5. MCA107.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 107/2025 SAYYAD SHAHZAD S/O SAYYAD SABIR

VERSUS

SAYYAD ZUBER S/O SAYYAD MURTUJA Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Ms. Mukta Ranade, counsel for applicant.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

D ATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for applicant.

2.

By way of this review application the applicant has sought review of the judgment dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 7046/2024.

3.

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the order sought to be reviewed does not mention elaborate reasons for dismissing the writ petition. Further it is submitted that the order sought to be reviewed is passed without considering the legal position with respect to condonation of delay.

4.

Learned counsel for applicant relies on the judgment of the High court of Allahabad in the matter of Ahmad Ullah Vs. Union of India And 5 Others and submits that the position of law is settled that every order should be passed by supporting reasons and in absence of reasons the order is unsustainable. 5.

Learned counsel for applicant also relies on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Chaudhary reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3612

2 5. MCA107.25.odt and submits that there has to be existence of sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

6.

The applicant has sought review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on the above mentioned two grounds. It is clear that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of record. Neither the applicant has made out any grounds to show that there is discovery of new facts which were not in his knowledge despite due diligence. The grounds raised by the applicant are in the nature of grounds of appeal and as such the applicant has failed to make out any case for review. 7.

The miscellaneous civil application is rejected. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) S.B. Raut