SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 116

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Sow. Chandra Kanta and another, Petitioners
Versus
Sheik Habib, Respondent.
Review Petn. No. 62-A of 1974, D/- 13-3-1975.*

Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, R.C.BHATIA, S.K.DHOLAKIA, S.V.TAMBWEKAR

Headnote:

Special Leave - Case is Typical Phenomenon of Repeat Performance - petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were urged at earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a re- hearing, once an order has been passed by this Court a review thereof must be subject to the rules of game and cannot be lightly entertained - A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility - Mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient - Very strict need for compliance with these factors is rationale behind the insistence of counsel s certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step - It is neither fairness to court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost - BENCH and Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in conservation of judicial time for maximum use – Held, Court regret to say that this case is typical of unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport - Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward - May be as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course - Present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality - Petition dismissed.

Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- Mr. Daphtary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a re- hearing. May be. we were not right in refusing special leave right in the first round but, once an order has been passed by this Court a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel s certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.

We dismiss the petition unhesitatingly, but with these observations hopefully.

Petition dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1975 SC 1500 = (1975) 3 SCR. 933.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top