Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(HP) 267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Coram (Division Bench)
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J.
Review Petition No. 4065/20 13 a/w Review Petitions Nos. 4066, 4067, 4068, 4069, 4070, 4071, 4072, 4073, 4074, 4075 of 2013 and CWP No. 2745/2013.
Date of decision: 27.03.2014
Rajesh Kumar & others Versus Ramesh Kumar & others & Connected Matter

For the petitioner(s):Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the petitioners in the respective petitions.
For the respondent(s):Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 in respective petitions. Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2 in respective petitions. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4 in Review Petition No. 4065/2013. Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Romesh Verma, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocates General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Advocate, for respondent No. 3-Board in CWP No. 2745/2013. Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4-Board in Rev. Petition Nos. 4071 to 4074 of 2013. Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate, for H.P. University in respective petitions.

A person adversely affected by a court judgment, who is not a party to the case, can seek leave to file a review.

Headnote:
Review Petition - Adverse Effect of Judgment on Non-Parties - The court granted leave to file review petitions to the petitioners who were adversely affected by the judgment, even though they were not parties to the original case, based on the principle that a person adversely affected by a court judgment can seek leave to file a review.
Fact of the Case:

The review petitioners sought leave to file review petitions as they were adversely affected by a judgment in different writ petitions, even though they were not parties to the original case.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were being adversely affected by the judgment, and their rights were being jeopardized, thus granting them leave to file review.
Issues: The main issue was whether the review petitioners, who were not parties to the original case, could be granted leave to file review petitions based on being adversely affected by the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on established legal principles that a person adversely affected by a court judgment, even if not a party to the case, can seek leave to file a review.
Final Decision: The court granted leave to file review petitions to the petitioners and disposed of the applications, with the review petitions already being registered.

JUDGMENT

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, ACJ (Oral) Through the medium of these applications, the review petitioners have sought leave of this Court to file Review Petitions on the grounds that they are adversely affected by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.12.2012 in different writ petitions. After the decision in the writ petitions, selection list was drawn which has adversely affected the selected candidates who were not party(s) in the said writ petitions.

2.The moot question is whether the leave can be granted to the review petitioners in the given circumstances.

3. It is beaten law of the land that if a person is affected by an order, judgment or interim directions of the Court, who is not party to the lis or was not party to the lis, can seek leave to file review, provided he is adversely affected.

4. While examining the record and the order made by this Court and the reply/objections filed by the State and by the Board, it appears that the petitioners are being adversely affected by the judgment of this Court, thus, their rights are being jeopardized.

5. In view of the above peculiar circumstances, leave to file review deserves to be granted.

6. The same question arose for consideration before the apex Court in Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others reported in 1963 SC 1909, Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1974 SC 259, Pohla Singh alilas Pohla Ram (D) by LRs and others vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2004 SC 3329, Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors, AIR 2006 SC 1634 and State of West Bengal and others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another (2008) 8 SCC 612, where the leave to file review was granted. Accordingly, the leave to file review is granted. The applications are accordingly disposed of.

7. Review petitions are already registered. Issue notice. Waived by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

List on 1st April, 2014.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2014 Supreme(HP) 267

A person adversely affected by a court judgment, who is not a party to the case, can seek leave to file a review.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis