TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions of Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution. The jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, of course, cannot be barred by statute since it is extraordinary power under Article 136. Article 136 is an extra-ordinary power which cannot be taken away by legislation. As considerable arguments are being raised before this Court as well as before various High Courts in the country on the maintainability of review petitions after the disposal of the special leave petition without granting leave but with or without assigning reasons on which also conflicting views are also being expressed by the two-Judge Benches of this Court. In order to resolve those conflicts and for proper guidance to the High Courts, we feel it would be app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the impugned order dated 9.9.2011. Learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the three Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another v. K. Santhakumaran and others (1998) 7 SCC 386 and contended that decision would squarely apply to the facts of this case and the High Court has rightly dismissed the review petition by holding that when the Judgment and decree passed by the High Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP, there was no question of entertaining the review petition. 3. Mr. Gopal Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the High Court has committed an error in dismissing the review petition since the earlier SLP was dismissed by this Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n case a litigant files a review petition before filing the special leave petition before this Court and it remains pending till the special leave petition stands dismissed, the review petition deserves to be considered. In case it is filed subsequent to dismissal of the special leave petition, the process of filing review application amounts to abuse of process of the court. 26. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that filing of such a review application by the respondents at a belated stage amounts to abuse of process of the court and such an application is not maintainable. Thus, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the review application by the Special Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition against the main judgment of the High Court. The position would be different where after dismissal of the special leave petition against the main judgment a party files a review petition after a long delay on the ground that the party was prosecuting remedy by way of special leave petition. In such a situation the filing of review would be an abuse of the process of the law. We are in agreement with the view taken in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm1 that if the High Court allows the review petition filed after the special leave petition was dismissed after condoning the delay, it would be treated as an affront to the order of the Supreme Court. But this is not the case here. In the present case, the review petition was filed well wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of this Court and after merger there is no judgment of the High Court. Hence, obviously, there can be no review of a judgment which does not even exist. 10. We notice that in K. Rajamouli (supra) this Court has followed Kunhay Ammed and others (supra) and distinguished Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another (supra) and in Gangadhara Palo (supra) later Bench did not accept the view expressed in K. Rajamouli (supra). To this extent, there is some conflict between the Judgments in Gangadhara Palo (supra) and K. Rajamouli (supra) which calls for resolution by a larger Bench. 11. We may also point out, in this connection, that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer any right of appeal on any party but it confers a discretio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Kunhay Ammed case, which is also, in our view, an issue to be considered by the larger Bench. 13. We notice considerable arguments are being raised before this Court as well as before various High Courts in the country on the maintainability of review petitions after the disposal of the special leave petition without granting leave but with or without assigning reasons on which also conflicting views are also being expressed by the two-Judge Benches of this Court. In order to resolve those conflicts and for proper guidance to the High Courts, we feel it would be appropriate that this matter be referred to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement. ORDER IN THE PROCEEDING PORTION Counsel for the petitioner pressed for an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
