Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 1663
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Tara Chand & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Oma Vati & Ors. - Respondents
Review Petition No. 2 of 2018
Decided On : 07-03-2018
G.R Palsra, Advocates for the appearing parties.
The High Court can only adjudicate a second appeal based on the grounds raised in the appeal or the substantial questions of law framed.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Grounds for Review - The court dismissed the review petition as the grounds raised were not raised in the original appeal, and the High Court can only adjudicate based on the grounds raised in the appeal or the substantial questions of law framed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to withdraw the Special Leave Petition to pursue the remedy available in law before the appropriate forum. Permission was granted, and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that even if the review petition was maintainable, the grounds raised were not raised in the original appeal, and the High Court can only adjudicate based on the grounds raised in the appeal or the substantial questions of law framed. The review petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues: Maintainability of the review petition and the grounds raised in the review petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court can only adjudicate a second appeal based on the grounds raised in the appeal or the substantial questions of law framed. Review petitions must raise grounds that were raised in the original appeal.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, after arguing the case for some time, seeks permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, so as to pursue the remedy available in law, before appropriate forum. Permission is granted.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty.
2. Even if, for a moment, the instant review petition is held to be maintainable, even then the grounds as raised therein, were admittedly not raised in the grounds of appeal while filing RSA No.194 of 2017.
3. It is more than settled that the High Court while deciding the second appeal can only adjudicate the same on the basis of the grounds raised in the appeal and in case the appeal is admitted, then on the basis of the substantial questions of law, as framed. This Court after perusing the grounds of appeal had dismissed the appeal in limine by concluding that no question of law much less substantial question of law arose for consideration therein.
4. Having said so, I find no merit in this review petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
