A review petition must be filed by the original counsel, and changing counsel without proper procedure undermines the integrity of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ.

CMP(M) No.324 of 2025

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of one year and 20 days in filing the review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of.

Review Petition No.18 of 2025

2. Review of the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in LPA No.316 of 2012 is sought by the applicant-Bank. Learned Senior Counsel has tried to make good submission on the ground that the matter was decided on account of a remand order dated 12.08.2022 having been passed on an earlier occasion by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5251 of 2022, which had been preferred by the Welfare Association, against the order dated 03.09.2014, when the Coordinate Bench had initially decided both the appeals of the Bank and of the Association and dismissed the writ petition being not maintainable, and therefore, decided in favour of the Bank.

3. It is, thus, submitted that when the matter, as such, came up after remand, the Letters Patent Appeal which had been filed initially by the Bank, bearing No.138 of 2014, was never heard on merits and therefore, the order, which is sought to be reviewed, was not justified.

4. It has been pointed out that since the writ petition had been dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 03.09.2014 and its appeal had been allowed, there was no occasion for the Bank to prefer the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the applicant has been condemned unheard.

5. We are not in agreement with the argument, which has been raised. Firstly, when the Apex Court remanded the matter on 12.08.2022, it was always open to the Bank to specifically get the fact incorporated in the said order that their LPA should have also been heard. The Apex Court had only restored LPA No.316 of 2012, which would be clear from paragraph-11 of the order passed by the Apex Court:-

“11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the view taken by the Division Bench, However, since the Division Bench had not dealt with the matter on merits, we restore LPA No.316 of 2012 to the file of the Division Bench and request the High Court to dispose of the same as early as possible and preferably within three months from the receipt of this order.”

6. Secondly, when the matter came up before the Division Bench, at that time, Bank was again represented by Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.3 and 4. No application was filed at that point of time before the Coordinate Bench to point out the ambiguity saying that the matter should not be heard without the listing of the appeal of the Bank or an opportunity should be given for getting clarification of the matter from the Apex Court.

7. The present review petition has also been filed by counsel other than the one who argued the matter. The Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr. , AIR 1997 SCC 1005 , has held that what transpires, at that point of time, would not be in the knowledge of the second counsel, therefore, a review has to be only preferred by the counsel, who had earlier appeared in the matter. Mr. Khajuria, counsel for the Bank, has not come forward to clarify exactly what transpired when the order dated 26.02.2024 was passed. The judgment reads as under:-

“It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact