1. Special Leave Petition filed — Review Petition filed in High Court — High Court rejected Review Petition citing pendency of Special Leave Petition. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 908
2000(7) Supreme 261
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.N. Khare & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Kamar Jaikrishna Panjabi -Appellant
versus
Manghraj Kachardas Gothi & Ors. -Respondents
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5210 of 2000
Decided on 28-4-2000
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court order that had rejected a Review Petition on the grounds that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was pending, thereby permitting the appellant to pursue the review remedy in the High Court.
Headnote:Special Leave Petition-Review petition filed before High Court dismissed as not maintainable in view of pendency of SLP-Appellant intending to pursue remedy by way of Review Petition-Order dismissing review petition set aside and High Court to decide review petition on merits. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought to pursue a Review Petition before the High Court despite the pendency of a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Court observed the appellant's intent to pursue the review remedy and set aside the High Court's rejection without commenting on the review's merits. (Para 3 )
4. The Supreme Court may set aside a High Court's order rejecting a Review Petition on the grounds of a pending Special Leave Petition. (Para 3 )
5. High Court order rejecting Review Petition set aside — High Court directed to decide Review Petition expeditiously — Execution of decree stayed by undertaking. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does the pendency of a Special Leave Petition bar the maintainability of a Review Petition in the High Court?
While a High Court may hold a Review Petition non-maintainable due to a pending Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court can set aside such an order to allow the review remedy to be pursued. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. How is the execution of a decree handled when a Review Petition is being pursued after an SLP is filed?
The court may allow the proceedings to continue provided the respondent gives an undertaking not to execute the decree until the Review Petition is decided. (Para 2 , 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. On 7th April, 2000 the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition out of which the present appeal arises before us. When the matter was taken up Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, prayed for adjournment of the case for three weeks to enable the appellant to file a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court. At that stage, Counsel for the respondent put in appearance in the matter. After we heard the matter for some time, we adjourned the case for three weeks. The respondents Counsel made a statement that the respondent would not execute the decree against the appellant. It appears that immediately thereafter, the appellant filed a Revision Petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court by an order dated 26th April, 2000 held, that the Review Petition was not maintainable in view of pendency of the Special Leave petition in this Court. The appellant has filed a copy of the said order dated 26th April, 2000 by means of an application. We permit the order of the High Court to be taken on record.
3. We have perused the order and heard Counsel for the parties. Since the appellant intends to pursue the remedy by way of a Review Petition, we set aside the order dated 26th April, 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay rejecting the Review Petition filed by the appellant. While doing so, we do not express any opinion as regard the merits or maintainability of the Review Petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the High Court to decide the Review Petition in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably by 31st July, 2000. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has given an undertaking to the effect that the respondent shall be execute the decree against the appellant till then. The appeal thus stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms without any prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties before the High Court. No costs.
Order accordingly.
*****************
