Honble CHAUHAN, J. – This review petition has been filed by the applicant Uda Ram against the judgment and order dated 21.8.97 passed in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 311/1989 on the ground that the relief claimed by him in the writ petition had not been considered as the petitioner had claimed the benefit not onlyof regularisation but also challenged the order dated 20.1.1989 by which the services of the petitioner on adhoc basis had been terminated and he also claimed the benefit of the provisions of Art. 39 (d) of the Constitution of India.

(2). None is present for the applicant-petitioner. Heard Mr. N.M. Lodha and Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3). The said judgment and order dated 21.8.97 was passed after hearing Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner and it was disposed-of in terms of the judgment passed by this court earlier in other connected writ petition. It has been pointed out by Mr. Lodha that the relief claimed by the applicant for equal pay for equal work under Art. 39 (d) of the Constitution was also a subject matter of the other writ petition i.e. 2175/1988 to which petitioner was also a party as his name appeared in the schedule. Petitioner in the writ petition No. 311/1989 had explained that he was a party in the earlier writ petition No. 2175/1988 and the relief claimed in the said writ petition was as under :

``The respondents be directed to pay the workmen, named in Schedule `A and `B, the salary in a regular pay scale.....

(4). Thus, the serious objection taken by the respondents is that petitioner cannot file two writ petitions for the same relief particularly when the earlier writ was pending. This submission is full of substance. Even if the earlier writ petition is not pending and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn, public policy whichis being reflected in the principle enshrined in Order 23 R. 1 of the Code of Civil Pro- cedure provides that successive writ petitions cannot be filed for the same relief. This view is fortified by a catena of judgments of Courts i.e. Surguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. (1), Ashok Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority (2), Khecher Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (3). In all these cases, it has been held that filing successive writ petitions for the same relief before a court amounts to sheer abuse of the process of the Court.

(5). Even if a party does not pray for the relief in the earlier writ petition, he cannot file a successive petition claiming same relief, which he ought to have claimed in the earlier one, as it would be barred by the principle enshrined in Order 2 R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Vide Commissioner of Income Tax vs. T.P. Kumaran (4) and Union of India vs. Punnilal & Ors. (5). In the instant case, petitioner had already claimed the same relief in writ petition No. 2175/88. The said petition has also been disposed of and no argument was made for this issue either in the earlier petition, nor in the subsequent one at the time of hearing by the counsel appearing for applicant-petitioner. It is difficult to understand how the review peti- tion is maintainable as the case certainly does not fall within the ambit of principle enshrined in Order 47 R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A party may raise various points in the petition but if all of them are not agitated at the time of hearing, the court is under no obligation to decide all the issues taken in the petition. The court is not supposed to find out all the issues involved in a given case, conduct full fledged research on them and then decide all of them on merit. Rather, it is not permissible for the court to deal with such issues as other party could not have been in a position to reply the submissions so raised by the court suo moto. The principle of fairness, equity, justice and good conscience requires that other party must be given an opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted on a partic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document