1. Respondent No. 1 instituted civil original suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 6, which is pending on the files of Learned Sub Judge, Budgam. Alongside the suit, an application seeking interim relief was also filed. The learned Trial Judge vide \its order dated 7th May, 2010 dismissed the application seeking grant of interim injunction.

2. Respondent No. 1 filed review petition, praying therein that the order dated 7th May, 2010 passed by learned Trial Judge be reviewed. The application seeking review of the order was not accompanied with certified copy of the order dated 7th May, 2010, though an unattested copy was annexed with the review application.

3. Notice was issued in the review application by the learned Trial Judge. Petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Judge and filed objection. Preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the review application and it was prayed that the same be dismissed for the reason that it was not accompanied by certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Confronted with this situation, the certified copy of the order dated 7th May, 2010 was produced before the learned Trial Judge and an oral submission was made that same be taken on record. The learned Trial Judge directed for taking on record, the certified copy of the aforementioned order which was, however, made subject to the objections of the other side. The petitioner through her counsel filed objections, wherein it was pleaded that the review application is liable to be dismissed for the reason that certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed was not filed alongwith review application, which was stated to be requirement of law. It was also pleaded that as the period of limitation for filing of review application had expired, the certified copy could not be ordered to be taken on record.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Judge vide its order dated 29th January, 2011, permitted the petitioner to place on record, the certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed and consequently the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected. It is this order which is called in question in this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to Order 47 Rule 3 as also to Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (for shot "code") and submitted that an application for review has to comply with the requirement of Order 41 Rule 1. Learned counsel further submitted that as the memorandum of review was not accompanied by the copy of the order sought to be reviewed, the review application was rendered incompetent and liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel also submitted that the period of limitation fixed for filing of the application, which in the submission of the learned counsel would also render the review application incompetent. The learned counsel in support of his submission referred to and relied upon judgments reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 832, AIR 1942 Oudh 349, and AIR 1972 KERALA 95.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that filing of the certified copy alongwith review application is mere procedural requirement, which is not mandatory in nature, so in law it can not be said the review application was incompetent being not accompanied by certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed. Learned counsel further submitted that the certified copy of the order sought to be reviewed having already been produced before the learned Trial Judge, the objection raised would thus pale into insignificance. The learned counsel referred to and relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 846, AIR 2006 Supreme Court 269 and AIR 1969 Supreme Court 575 and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

7. In order to appreciate contentions raised at bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 114, Order 41 Rule 1 Order 47 Rule 1 & 3 of the code.

"114. Review.

Subject as aforesaid, any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document