2005 Supreme(Raj) 3158
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rajesh Balia, R.S.Chauhan, JJ.
L.R. Tikuram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
D.B.C. Misc. Review Petition No. 5769 of 2004.
Decided On : 10-08-2005
Advocates:
For the Applicants:Basti Chand, Advocate.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 47 Rule 1 – The present case is a review petition – the D.B.C. W.P No. 4437/91 was dismissed by order dated 6th May 2003 on the ground that when said Order was passed and writ petition was decided, the petitioner was dead and LRs. were not brought on record – the present petition challenges the maintainability of the same – the court dismissed the review petition providing that no interference is required and held that the court was not informed about the death of the petitioner by the counsel who was representing him in court when the petition was decided on merit – therefore, no prejudice could be said to have been done by not bringing the LRs on record –
JUDGMENT
1. - We have heard learned Counsel for the applicants.
The applicants seek review of the order dated 6th May. 2003 passed by the Division Bench dismissing the D.B.C. Writ Petition No. 4437/91.
2. The only ground of seeking review of the said order is that at the time when the writ petition was decided, the petitioner had died.
3. It is to be noticed that the petition was decided on merits in presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who had not informed the Court about the death of the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice has caused on not bringing the LRs. of the petitioner on record.
4. The principle of abatement strictly does not apply to the writ petition. If the petitioner's case is accepted then, petition would have been dismissed on the ground that the sole petitioner died and there is nobody to pursue the writ petition. Since, the case was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the petition was decided on merits, therefore. the result of the decision has remained same. Moreover, we find that the petitioner has sought to challenge the order of Division Bench by way of appeal in the Supreme Court on the same ground however, the withdrew the said special leave petition with the submission that he will prefer review petition before the High Court. therefore, that S.L.P. was dismissed as withdrawn.
5. In the fats and circumstances, no case for review is made out. The application is rejected.Review application rejected.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
