Back
2014 Supreme(Gau) 315
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
MR. A.M. SAPRE, MR. A.K. GOSWAMI, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & 4 ORS
Vs.
DAMODAR PANDA
Review Petition No.22 of 2014 In W.P.(C) No.948 of 2012 And Review Petition No.26 of 2014 In W.P.(C) No.938 of 2012
Decided on : 08-04-2014
The grounds for seeking review must satisfy the requirements of the relevant legal provisions, and what may be a good ground for appeal may not necessarily be suitable for seeking review.
Headnote:
Review Petitions - Dismissal of Review Petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P. Code
Fact of the Case:
The review petitions were filed by the Respondents of Writ Petition (C) No.938 of 2012 and Writ Petition No.948 of 2012, which were allowed by the Court by a common order. The review petitions were placed before the Bench for disposal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the grounds for the review petitions did not satisfy the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 and, therefore, no review could be filed or entertained. The Court also noted that the grounds raised in the review petitions may be good grounds for appeal, but not for seeking review. The Court dismissed the review applications.
Issues: The main issue was whether the grounds raised in the review petitions satisfied the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 for seeking review.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the grounds raised in the review petitions did not satisfy the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 and were more suitable for appeal rather than seeking review.
Final Decision: The review applications were found to have no merit and were dismissed in limini.
(A.M. Sapre, C.J.)
These are review petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P. Code, filed by the Respondents of Writ Petition (C) No.938 of 2012 and Writ Petition No.948 of 2012, which were allowed by this Court by a common order passed on 8.11.2012. Since the learned Judges are no longer available in the High Court to hear and decide this Review Petition as provided in order 47 of CP Code read with High Court Rules and, hence, this Review Petition is placed before this Bench for its disposal according to law.
2. Heard Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, learned Central Government Counsel for the review petitioners.
3. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners and having perused record of the case, in our opinion, the grounds which are sought to be made subject matter of these review petitions do not satisfy the requirement of Order 47 Rule 1 and, therefore, no review can be filed and if filed, the same cannot be entertained. In other words, there is no error apparent on the face of the record of the case which can be said to have been made out and hence, the review is not tenable. It is liable to be dismissed in limini.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners no doubt made vehement attack in persuading this court to seek review on the grounds pleaded in the application. However, we are afraid we can accept any of his submissions. In our view, the grounds which are sought to be raised in review petitions may be good grounds in appeal, if filed, but not for seeking review. What may be good ground in appeal may not be good for seeking review though vice versa may hold good for calling interference. We, therefore, do not wish to deal with each and every ground in detail, which are used in support of this review petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited several authorities to contend that they were not taken note of though cited at the time of hearing of the writ petition. He, therefore, contended that a case is made out for review. We do not agree. The order passed by this court is reasoned one and has decided the controversy. The remedy of petitioners if at all may lie in filing appeal, as provided in law.
6. It is with these observations and liberty, we find no merit in these review applications. It fails and is, accordingly, dismissed in limini.
No cost.
