9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Ashish Shroti, counsel for the respondent ORDER Per Rajendra Menon, J: This application has been filed for review/recall of an order dated 16/05/2006 passed by a Bench of this Court in M.A No. 1153/1999. 2. The dispute arises out of the judgment rendered against the judgment debtor M/s. Pemier Brass & Metal Works Pvt. Ltd, Bhopal who had availed facilities of loan from the respondent Bank o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n application for intervention, however as he did not appear when the appeal was finally heard as stated in para 10 of the order dated 16/05/2006, the appeal has been decided in favour of the Bank and now this application has been filed merely on the ground that the right of the intervenor was not considered and by contending that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Bikha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of intervenor the review is not maintainable, it is said that that even if in the appeal intervenor had any grievance he could not claim any relief for himself as a intervenor, he may have a right to intervene but as a intervenor has no right to seek any relief to himself in a proceeding, though, the application is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was pending i.e M.A No. 1153/1999, the applicant as a intervenor could not claim any relief for himself based on the right that accrued to him by virtue of the auction conducted in his favour. He could not stake his right to the property by way of intervention, he could only either support or oppose the claim of one of the party. In the capacity of a intervenor he cannot challenge the auction pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r could not claim any relief for himself, accordingly, even if this application is allowed and the appeal proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58 are restored the intervenor cannot get any benefit as he cannot claim any relief for himself. That being so no useful purpose would be served in considering the question of review at the instance of the applicant an intervenor for the reasons as are indicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
