9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o move the High Court in a review petition. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn. " 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners on 14th January, 2013 filed an application for correction / rectification of an error in the aforesaid order, averring that the liberty sought and granted had remained to be noted therein, but the counsel for the petitioners was informed that the application was considered and would not be listed for hearing. 4. We have heard the senior counsel for the review petitioners as well as the counsel for the respondent Union of India (UOI) and have also perused the written submissions filed on the said preliminary objection. 5. The senior counsel for the review petitioners has contended (i) that once the Supreme Court permits withdrawal of a SLP without recording reasons, it is as if no appeal was ever filed or entertained since in the absence of grant of special leave, there is no appeal in existence; (ii) that where a SLP is permitted to be withdrawn and equally when it is dismissed in limine without recording reasons, the High Court's judgment neither merges into any proceedings before the Supreme Court nor is it in any manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra) is not a precedent; (ix) that Meghmala (supra) has been considered in Sri Ram Builders (supra) as contrary to Kunhayammed (supra) and Gangadhara Palo (supra); (x) that the correctness of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) has in any case been referred to a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Vs. Mahadeswara S.S.K. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC 291; (xi) that though in the facts aforesaid, there is no conflict of opinion but even if it were to be held so, as per the judgment dated 10th February, 2009 of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(CRL) No.2444/2006 titled Gopa Manish Vora Vs. Union of India and Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera Vs. Umrao AIR 1981 P&H 213, it is open to the High Court to follow that judgment which in its opinion lays down the law more correctly; (xii) that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jia Lal Kapur Vs. Union of India 2016 (154) DRJ 698 though on the basis of K. Rajamouli and Meghmala (supra) holding review to be not maintainable after dismissal of SLP but is per incuriam Gangadhara and Sri Ram Builders (supra) and other judgments. 6. Per contra, the counsel for UOI has relied on Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the preference of an appeal. 7. We have considered the rival contentions. 8. We are in the factual situation of the present case concerned not with a case of dismissal in limine by a non-speaking order of an SLP preferred against the judgment of which review is sought but with dismissal as withdrawn of the SLP. Though the review petitioners, while seeking to withdraw the SLP also sought liberty to move this Court in review petition but the Supreme Court merely dismissed the SLP as withdrawn and has not stated that the liberty sought had been granted. 9. The question which arises is, whether the dismissal as withdrawn of the SLP, even in the absence of the words "with liberty sought" is to be read as grant of liberty. 10. The review petitioners obviously were of the opinion that without the aforesaid words, they did not have liberty to approach this Court by way of review and claim to have made an application to the Supreme Court in this regard but which application is stated to have been refused to be listed. 11. In our opinion, it is not for us to venture into, whether the order, notwithstanding having not provided that the review petitioners had been granted liberty, g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not deprived of any statutory right of review, if it was available and he can pursue it; it may be that the review Court may interfere or it may not interfere depending upon the law and principles applicable to interference in review; but the High Court, if it exercises a power of review or deals with the review application on merits, cannot be said to be wrong in exercising statutory jurisdiction or power vested in it. It was expressly held that review can be filed even after SLP is dismissed and as also before special leave is granted but not after it is granted. It was held that once special leave is granted, the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the High Court's order vested in the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot entertain a review thereafter unless such a review application was preferred in the High Court before the SLP was granted. With respect to Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) it was observed that the facts and circumstances of the case persuaded the Supreme Court to form an opinion that the tenants were abusing the process of the Court by approaching the High Court and the very entertainment of review petition and then reversing the ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Sunil Kumar (supra) as Kunhayammed (supra) was dealing with civil cases. 19. We have already noticed above that in Kunhayammed (supra) the review petition was filed after the order of dismissal of the SLP. 20. What we find is that the observations, of preferring review petition after the dismissal of SLP amounting to abuse of the process of the Court, in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) as well as in Sunil Kumar (supra) are on a factual finding of the petitioners therein abusing the process of the Court and not on the maintainability of the review petition. Certainly, if we are to find the review petitioners herein also to be abusing the process of the Court by preferring this review petition after withdrawal of the SLP preferred against the judgment of which review is sought, the review petition of the review petitioners would also suffer the same fate. However it would not make the review not maintainable. 21. We next take up Bakshi Dev Raj (supra). Incidentally in that case also, the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. We do not find it to be laying anything to the contrary and rather find it to be relying extensively on Kunhayammed (supra) and ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
