Gujarat HC Dismisses Review After Counsel Refuses to Argue, Warns Cost Recovery as Land Revenue
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a review application in a PIL, finding its averments were fresh additions impermissible at the review stage, and extended the cost deposit deadline with a land revenue recovery warning.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, on 31 July 2026 dismissed a miscellaneous civil application seeking review of the court's own judgment and order dated 25 June 2026 in a public interest litigation filed by Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat. The bench found that the review application contained only fresh averments that had not been part of the original writ petition and could not be raised at the review stage. The court also took sharp notice of the petitioner's counsel refusing to argue the matter, calling the conduct unappreciable. The petitioner was given four additional weeks to deposit costs imposed by the 25 June 2026 judgment, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
The Review Application and the Adjournment Request
The review application arose from Misc. Civil Application (For Review) No. 1855 of 2026, filed in the PIL proceedings bearing R/Writ Petition (PIL)/25/2026. The petitioner, Dr. Vilas Tukaram Kharat, sought recall or review of the judgment and order that the Division Bench itself had rendered on 25 June 2026.
When the review application was taken up on 31 July 2026, counsel for the review applicant sought an adjournment. The stated reason was that a learned Senior Counsel had agreed to argue the review application but was indisposed on that date. Ms. Ratna Vora, advocate for the petitioner and review applicant, was physically present in court but declined to argue the matter herself, insisting that the Senior Counsel had agreed to take over the review.
The bench was not persuaded. Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, writing the oral order for the Division Bench, recorded that the original writ petition had itself been argued by Ms. Ratna Vora when the judgment of 25 June 2026 was rendered. The court accordingly declined the adjournment request.
Re-Hearing at Review Stage Held Impermissible
Beyond the adjournment issue, the bench examined the substance of the review application. It found that all the averments made in the review application were fresh additions to the averments contained in the original writ petition.
The court held that such fresh averments <“cannot be permitted to be agitated at the stage of review.” It reaffirmed the settled legal position that re-hearing within the scope of review is impermissible. A review proceeding is confined to correcting apparent errors on the face of the record; it is not an avenue to introduce new grounds or arguments that were not placed before the court when the original judgment was rendered.
On both counts — the refusal to argue and the impermissible fresh averments — the Division Bench dismissed the review application. No order as to costs was made on the review application itself.
Cost Deposit Extended; Land Revenue Recovery Warning
At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms. Ratna Vora made a separate request: that the petitioner be granted additional time to deposit the costs that had been imposed upon him by the judgment and order dated 25 June 2026.
The bench acceded to this limited request. It granted four weeks from 31 July 2026 for the petitioner to deposit the cost amount. However, the court made the consequences of non-compliance explicit: if the petitioner fails to make the deposit within the extended period, the cost amount shall be realised as arrears of land revenue.
Recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue is a coercive mode of enforcement under applicable State law, allowing the State machinery to recover the amount without requiring further civil proceedings. The bench's direction ties the petitioner's non-compliance to a self-executing recovery mechanism.
Order
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray dismissed Misc. Civil Application (For Review) No. 1855 of 2026 on 31 July 2026. No costs were awarded on the review application. The petitioner was granted four weeks from that date to deposit the costs imposed by the judgment dated 25 June 2026, failing which the amount is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.