TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment of this Court dated 11.8.2004 has been sought and by Application no. 29291 of 2005, six months time has been prayed for vacating the properties in question. 3. On the close of arguments, learned counsel who argued the matter from both sides, submitted that they may give brief note which may facilitate this Court in passing the order and thus, brief note/submission given has not been made part of record and that has been just perused. A brief note given by Sri Singh, learned counsel in support of review petition is clearly reiteration of various facts and details in the light of evidence which is the part of counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and thus they are reiteration of the facts and details on which reappraisal of re hearing appears to be an effort which for the reasons indicated in this order and within limited scope of consideration may not be permissible. 4. Issue in the writ petition was about validity and propriety of the auction sale of three houses i.e. House no. 16/20, 16/20-B and 16/20-C situated in Civil Lines, Kanpur which were auctioned for small dues of the sales tax department for a total amount of Rs.1,61,000/-. After lengthy arguments f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. N. Raj Reddiar JT 1997 (1) SC 486. In view of aforesaid rival contention, this Court has examined the matter in issue. 9. So far the propriety of filing review petition and arguments on it by new counsel who never appeared in earlier proceedings and hearing of case, the Apex Court has already decided the issue in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. N. Raju Reddiar JT 1997 (1) SC 486. The observation of the Apex Court in this regard as quoted in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) is quoted. The record of appeal indicates that Sri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate on Record when appeal was heard and decided don merits. The Review petition has been filed by Sri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained No objection certificate from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el nor assisting counsel at the initial stage, cannot be permitted. To argue same details as a question of fact in second inning f the matter cannot be permitted. It is under very exceptional circumstances where it can b4e demonstrated that on the finding and reasoning so given, there is error apparent on the face of record which can be termed to be a mistake within the meaning of error apparent as that can be discovered without any argument, it may be filed by a new advocate but that too after obtaining no objection from earlier counsel. If a case is to be argued on the same set of facts by change of counsel, at several occasion, it may be possible that with imminence of the counsel, a new dimension to the argument may come on same set of facts. Skill in the argument and advocacy is to vary always from counsel to counsel. Although earlier two senior advocates of this Court namely Sri R.N. Singh and Sri V.B. Upadhyaya argued the matters on behalf of applicant at length with full vehemence at their command but now Sri V.B. Singh, learned senior advocate wants to argue the matter in his own way by placing the same record and same pleadings. On the facts of present case, this Court is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitution is attracted to such an order. Grounds entitling exercise of review jurisdiction conferred by order 47 Rule 1 CPC or any other statutory provision or allowing review of an order passed in exercise of writ or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court (where also the principles underlying or emerging from Order 47 Rule 1 CPC act as guidelines are not necessarily the same on which this Court exercises discretion to grant or not to grant special leave to appeal while disposing of a petition for the purpose. Mere rejection of a special leave petition does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court, tribunal or forum whose order forms the subject matter of petition for special leave to review its own order if grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction are shown to exist. Where the order rejecting an SLP is a speaking order, that is where reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the petition for special leave and are stated in the order still the order remains the one rejecting prayer for the grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner has been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Here also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it will be useful to quote order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. which reads as under: 1. Application for review of judgment (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed. (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which , after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order. 14. A reading of the aforesaid makes it clear that review petition can be filed if from the discovery of new materials which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made or on account of some mistak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh Vs. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, that may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 16. In respect to error apparent in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satyanar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The time was not so short that the applicant can be said to be able to manage for their own place and to remove the goods. At the same time, when the matter was heard by the Apex Court and it was decided if the applicants were to seek any extension of time for any good reason, it was open for them to have requested the Apex Court for grant of sometime in this respect. This Court is not aware that whether time was prayed and refused by the Apex Court or it was not prayed, but in any view of the matter, as this Court has already granted six months time for vacating the premises in question, it appears that no ground has been made out for extension of time. In the application which has been filed by the applicants in this respect, no reason whatsoever has been given for extension of time. Nothing has been said that how within a period of six months, applicants were not able to do the needful. The only averment in the application is that the applicants tried to find a building in the locality so that they may shift but to the misfortune, no suitable building could be found. No detail of making efforts has been given, therefore, the sole averment in this respect is apparently for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
