Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Suresh G. Ramnani – Appellant
Versus
Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8293 of 2022, SLP (Civil) No. 20623 of 2019
Decided On : 10-11-2022
Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules – Chapter XXX Rule 3(1) – Review petition – Suit for declaration and permanent injunction – Matter does not raise any factual issue, but it is only a question of interpretation of Rules, Court’s propriety and jurisdiction – Considering overall facts and circumstances of case, once application was preferred by any of parties that review may be heard by Judge who had decided the matter and had passed order from which review arose, matter ought to have been placed before Chief Justice on administrative side rather than order being passed on judicial side – Proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of Rules confers this power on Chief Justice to assign a particular matter to a single Judge for hearing of review application where single Judge concerned was not available – Chief Justice, being master of roster and being conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules, single Judge ought not to have dealt with Misc. Civil Application but should have referred the matter to be placed before Chief Justice – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 15 and 16)
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This is defendant’s appeal assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, rejecting the Misc. Civil Application No. 526 of 2019 in Civil Application (Review) No. 7 of 2019. The order reads as under:
“Heard Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Advocate for the applicant.
2. In view of the clause (3) of Chapter 13 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules prayer (a) of the application cannot be granted.
3. Mr. N. Fernandes, learned Counsel submits that matter be placed after 5th October, 2019.
4. At his request, stand over to 07.10.2019.”
3. A bare reading of the impugned order extracted above would raise a hundred doubts in the mind as to why this petition has been filed. However trivial, we may consider the issue at hand, but considering the seriousness and the length of arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsels, we were compelled to reserve the judgment and give a serious thought to the issue.
FACTS
4. The respondent instituted a suit on 11.01.1985 for declaration and permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 21 of 1985 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Margao titled Mrs. Aurelia Ana da Piedade Miranda Araujo Alvares and Others vs. Mr. Gobindram Jethanand Ramnani and Others. After the contest, the Trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2003. The appellant preferred an appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 [In short “CPC”] in the court of District Judge at Margao, Goa, registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2013, titled Mr. Suresh G. Ramnani vs. Mrs. Aurelia Ana da Piedade Miranda alias Araiyo Alvares and Others. This appeal initially came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.04.2008. The second appeal under section 100 CPC was preferred by the appellant which came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 02.03.2012. The High Court remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision. After remand the first appeal was again dismissed vide judgment and order dated 09.07.2012.
5. Aggrieved by the same, Second Appeal No. 98 of 2013 was preferred by the appellant in the High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa, titled Mr. Suresh G. Ramnani vs. Mrs. Aurelia Ana da Piedade Miranda alias Araiyo Alvares and Others. In the second appeal judgment was reserved by Justice G.S. Patel vide order dated 10.12.2017. It would be relevant to note that Justice Patel at the relevant time was sitting at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court.
6. To complete the facts, it would be relevant to mention that Justice Patel returned to the Principal Bench at Bombay on 24.10.2017. It is also an admitted fact that on 01.11.2017, certain clarifications were made before the Court (Justice Patel) by the parties through Hybrid mode regarding the issue of whether the parties are arriving at a settlement or not. The second appeal was allowed vide judgment and order dated 30.01.2019. The judgment was delivered through virtual mode by the learned Judge while sitting at Bombay.
7. A Review petition was filed by the respondent on 12.02.2019 registered as Civil Review Application No. 7 of 2019. It was listed before Justice Nutan D. Sardessai and after hearing learned counsel for the review applicant, the same was ordered to be admitted on 04.03.2019. The said order is reproduced below:
“1. Heard Shri A. Diniz, learned Advocate for the applicants.
2. Admit.”
8. At this stage when the notice of the review was served, an application was moved by the appellant on 16.07.2019 registered as Misc. (Civil) Application No. 526 of 2019 with the prayer that the Civil Review Application No. 7 of 2019 be ordered to be transferred and be placed before Justice G.S. Patel for final disposal. The said application was supported by an affidavit dated 06.06.2019. The prayer clause as contained in paragraph 9 of the application is reproduced below:
“9. It is therefore prayed that:
(a) The above Civil R
Judgments must be delivered by the Bench that conducted the hearing; failing this constitutes a nullity, violating fundamental principles of judicial procedure.
A party not impleaded in a writ petition may seek review if they claim to be aggrieved by an order violating principles of natural justice, as the power of review is essential for justice.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
A review petition cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law; it must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that was not previously available.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
