The main legal point established in the judgment is that the omission to give the certificate is a curable irregularity and the review petitions can be allowed if the requisite certificate is offered. However, the court found that the review petitions were not maintainable based on the grounds that the orders had merged into appellate orders and the court was debarred by law to review its own orders.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.P, Pathak, learned senior counsel, appearing for the review applicants, assisted by Mr. S. Sarma, and Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the writ petitioners-opposite parties, assisted by Mr. P.N. Goswami.

2. These review petitions, namely, Review Petition Nos. 116/2003, 117/2003, 118/2003, 119/2003, and 120/2003, which seek to get reviewed the orders, dated 27.1.2003, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 458(AP)/2001, 397(AP)/2001, 398(AP)/2001, 483(AP)/2001, 498(AP)/2001 respectively, have been resisted at the threshold on the ground of maintainability of the review petitions by the writ petitioners-opposite parties herein.

3. The maintainability of the present set of review petitions has been challenged, in a nut-shell, on two grounds. It is, first, contended by Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel, that Rule 6 of Chapter-X of the Gauhati High Court Rules requires that either the applicant, who presents the review application, or his Advocate shall give certificate as provided by Rule 4 of the said Rules and Rule 4 required that every application for review of the judgment shall be presented to the stamp reporter, who will certify thereon whether the petition is in due form, within time, and properly stamped, or that it is irregular, and shall return the petition with such certificate.

4. In the case at hand, five review petitions are, admittedly, not accompanied by any certificate of either review applicants or their Advocate. It is submitted, on behalf of the writ petitioners-opposite parties, that the review petitions, being in contravention of the provisions of Rule 4 read with Rule 6 of the Gauhati High Court Rules, are not maintainable.

5. Controverting the above submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners-opposite parties, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the review applicants, has submitted that the omission to give a certificate, as required under the said Rules, is a curable irregularity and the same will not make a review petition not maintainable in law if the review applicant or his Advocate offers to give the requisite certificate. In the case at hand, it is pointed out by Mr. Pathak, petitions have, now, been made before this Court by the review applicants seeking to get the requisite certificates added to the review petitions and, hence, on the ground of omission to give the requisite certificate, which is a mere procedural requirement, it will be unjust to stop the review applicants from seeking justice.

6. While considering the above submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is important to note that when a review petition is made after a judgment and/or order is passed, the Court is dragged into yet another round of litigation. Lest such round of litigation be not frivolous or vexatious, the Court, where the review is sought for, wants to be prima facie satisfied that the review petition has some substance. An Advocate is an officer of the Court and when he certifies that there are good grounds for re view, this certificate carries its own weight. However, depending on the certificate, so given, no review petition is decided. Hence, the rendering of the certificate by the review applicant or his Advocate cannot be treated so fundamental that the omission to give the certificate will ipso facto make the Court to dismiss the review petition. A careful reading of Rule 4 shows that a certificate is required to be given for the purpose of, basically, satisfying the Stamp Reporter that the petition is in due form, the same has been made within- time, the petition is properly stamped and regular in all manner. At best, the omission to give the certificate in support of the review petition, in terms of Rule 4 read with Rule 6, is a curable irregularity and in a case, wherein, the Advocate or the review applicant offers to give the requisite certificate, it would be unjust not to allow such an irregularity to be cured.

7. For what have been poi