( 1 ) WHETHER an appeal against an order refusing to review a judgment passed by this court lies is the question involved in this writ appeal. FACTS

( 2 ) THE appellant filed a petition in WPMP (Sr.) No. 139192 of 2000 to review the judgment dated September 10, 1999 passed in writ Petition No. 4409 of 1994 by a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single judge dismissed the review petition holding that the appellant has to pursue the remedy before the appellate forum and not by review application.

( 3 ) THE appellant herein was appointed as sub-staff in 1973 in the first respondent-Bank. He was promoted as Assistant Cashier-cum- godown Keeper in 1978. He was charge sheeted for misappropriating a sum of Rs. 50,025-00 on May 21, 1984 while officiating as Chief Cashier of Ranijgunj Branch. The appellant pleaded guilty in the domestic enquiry and was found guilty of misconduct. On June 21, 1985 a notice was issued calling upon him to show-cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Upon consideration of the cause shown, an order of dismissal from service was passed. A departmental appeal preferred by him was rejected and a prayer for review thereof was also turned down. An industrial dispute in relation to the said orders was raised before the second respondent. A miscellaneous petition was filed therein to try the validity of domestic enquiry as preliminary issue so as to enable the first respondent-Bank to adduce evidence if domestic enquiry is held to be vitiated.

( 4 ) THE miscellaneous petition was allowed oh November 24, 1989 holding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated on the ground the proceedings were not conducted fairly and properly.

( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent-Bank filed Writ Petition no. 14794 of 1994. The Industrial Tribunal, however, passed an award on October 14, 1993 upholding dismissal of the appellant from service. The appellant filed Writ Petition no. 4409 of 1994 questioning the said award, which was dismissed by this Court. Writ petition No. 14794 of 1994 filed by the first respondent-Bank was in the aforementioned situation dismissed as infructuous. The appellant filed review petition along with a petition to condone delay of 444 days in filing the same. Against the dismissal of the review petition, this appeal is preferred.

( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding to advert to the question involved herein, we may place on record that having regard to the fact that the appellant had been appearing in person, we requested Sri Y. Venkata Sastri, a senior counsel of this Court to argue the matter on his behalf. But when the matter was called on for hearing on September 27, 2001, Sri Venkata sastri informed that the appellant wanted to argue the matter himself. However, at our request, Sri. Venkata Sastri addressed us as amicus curiae.

( 7 ) RECONCILABILITY of the provisions of order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") vis-a-vis the Writ proceeding Rules framed by this Court has in the past engaged the attention of the Court in a number of decisions. In this reference also, the said question arises in view of the provision contained in Order XLVII, Rule 7 of the Code, which reads thus:" (1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit. (2) Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when such application was called on for hearing, the court shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document