CONC No.261/2017:

1. Condonation of delay in moving Review Petition is sought for in instant motion as delay is claimed to be nominal and not intentional or deliberate but owing to unavoidable circumstances.

2. Respondents have vehemently resisted the application by filing objections in opposition thereto.

3. I have gone through the application and am of the considered view that the applicant has carved out a case for grant of condonation of delay. As a sequel thereto, application is allowed. The delay in filing Review Petition is condoned. Disposed of.

4. Review Petition is taken on board.

RPC No.49/2018

1. Appellant-Review Petitioner is seeking review of judgment/order dated 14.11.2017 passed by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, diarized as CIMA No. 155/2013, by virtue of which, Appeal filed by Appellant-Review Petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Alongside Appeal a separate application, bearing MP No. 228/2013, is contended to have been preferred by Appellant-Review Petitioner, for placing on record additional/material evidence for proper adjudication of the matter. It is claimed that had consideration been accorded to application (MP No.228/2013) the conclusion drawn by this Court vide judgment dated 14.11.2017 would have been totally different.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents insists that filing of present review petition is abuse of process of law as the same is hit by doctrine of finality. He contends that in Meghmala & Ors. v. G. Narasimha & others (2010) 8 SCC 383, the issue, as has emerged in the present case, has been crystallized to the effect that in case a litigant prefers a review petition prior to filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and review petition remains pending till Special Leave Petition is dismissed, review petition deserves to be considered. In case, review petition is filed subsequent to dismissal of Special Leave Petition, the process of filing review petition amounts to abuse of process of the Court and that the Supreme Court is of considered opinion that filing of such a review petition at belated stage amounts to abuse of process of the Court and such petition is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for respondents also vehemently argues that in the present case, Appellant-Review Petitioner first preferred SLP before the Supreme Court, which was, however, dismissed on 07.12.2017 and thereafter present review petition has been moved before this Court. Thus, filing of Review Petition after failing before the Apex Court is sheer abuse of process of the law as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not granted any leave to the Appellant-Review Petitioner for moving any Review Petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Review is sought on the ground that while taking the appeal for final disposal, application bearing MP No. 228/2013, for placing on record below mentioned documents, was not considered:-

(i) The judgment dated 22.11.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jammu, acquitting the driver of the offending vehicle of offences under Sections 279/304-A RPC;

(ii) The statement of Vipan Kumar (owner of the offending vehicle) under Section 161 Cr. P.C., affirming that vehicle was handed over to mechanic, Ranjit Singh, in his freelance personal capacity and the mechanic/driver was paid a sum of INR.2500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) for conducting accidental repairs upon the Santro Car; and

(iii) The statement of eyewitness, Rakesh Kumar alias Rinku Dogra, under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, affirming that the car never entered the premises of the appellant company and was, in fact, repaired by some other private mechanic.

7. This Court, after hearing both the sides, vide judgment/order dated 14.11.2017, review whereof is sought, did not find any case for interference with the well-reasoned judgment of learned Tribunal and as such, dismissed the appeal. However, with a view to appreciate the relief