Milind Dada Kale v. Kiran Raghunath Kale And ORS

32-ia8230-2025.doc VRJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8230 OF 2025 IN REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.17188 OF 2025 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV IN WRIT PETITION NO.3609 OF 2025 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.07.08 17:54:59 +0530 WITH REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.17188 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3609 OF 2025 Milind Dada Kale Applicant/Review Petitioner V/s.

Kiran Raghunath Kale & Ors.

... Respondents ...

Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate with Vivek Salunkhe, Vivek M. Punjabi, Ashish Venugopal and Priyansh R. Jain for the applicant/review petitioner. Mr. Umesh S. Iyer for respondent No.1.

Mr. S. M. Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate with Surel Shah, Senior Advocate i/by Gurudas Gorwadkar and Sandeep Shinde for respondent Nos.6A-3, 7 and 8.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JULY 8, 2025 P.C.:

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8230 OF 2025 1.

For the reasons stated in the interim application, the same stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

32-ia8230-2025.doc REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO.17188 OF 2025 2.

The present review petitioner was originally a respondent in Writ Petition No.18903 of 2024. Being a respondent therein, he did not possess the liberty to independently challenge or question the legality or correctness of the order passed in the said writ petition.

3.

It is important to clarify that the observations and findings recorded in the judgment dated 12th March 2025 were made in the context of the adjudication of the writ petition in which the present petitioner was respondent.

4.

Accordingly, it is clarified that the rights and remedies available to the present petitioner in law remain unaffected by the said order dated 12th March 2025, and he shall be at liberty to pursue such remedies independently, in accordance with law. 5.

The review petition stands disposed of. No costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)