Yusuf Suleman Baugwala v. Our Lady Of Gloria Church Trust And 6 ORS.
3-RPW-15-2025 IN WP-3208-2024.DOCX Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 15 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3208 OF 2024 Yusuf Suleman Baugwala
...Petitioner
Versus
Our Lady of Gloria Church Trust & Ors
...Respondents
______________________________________________________ None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Vrushali Kabre, for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 7. Ms. Pushpa Yadav, i/b, Adv. Kamal Punjabi, for the BMC. ______________________________________________________
CORAM:
M.S. Sonak & Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED:
10 DECEMBER 2025 PC:- 1.
None for the Review Petitioners. Ms. Pushpa Yadav appears for BMC and Ms Vrusali Kabre appears for the State. 2.
Though, the Review Petitioner or his Counsel are absent, we propose to dispose of this Review Petition on merits. This AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV is because we suspect that on account of the pendency of this AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.12.12 17:10:39 +0530 Review Petition, the Review Petitioner is trying to take undue advantage of the situation.
3.
This Petition seeks review of our order of 3 July 2024 by which we had only directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal
3-RPW-15-2025 IN WP-3208-2024.DOCX Corporation (BMC) to look into the Petitioner's complaints regards the illegal constructions undertaken by the Petitioner's alleged tenants. Further we had directed the BMC to hear not only the Petitioner but also the alleged tenants against whom such complaints were made before any decision is taken in the matter. Thus, interests of all parties had been duly protected. 4.
From the perusal of the Review Petition, we find that the scope of the proceedings are sought to be unduly expanded by making several allegations against the Original Petitioner or by alleging that the Original Petitioner has suppressed certain facts. Based upon such grounds, which we have perused, we are satisfied that no case for review has been made out. The Petitioner also refers to the subsequent development. Subsequent development also does not constitute any good ground for review.
5.
The Petitioner or his Advocate should have remained present in the Court today because they are aware that the Special Bench has to be constituted to hear this matter. This matter was duly notified on the cause list. This Court had to assemble after a normal Court hours as it was not possible to disturb regular assignments.
6.
Still, we have considered the merits of the Review Petition and upon finding that no grounds for review are made out, we dismiss this Review Petition on merits. No costs. (Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)