Back
1998 Supreme(P&H) 107
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
Prem Dutt - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Review Application No. 111 of 1997 in Civil Writ Petition No. 17958 of 1994.
Decided On : 20 January, 1998
For the Appellant :Mr. N.B.S. Gujral, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Shushant Maini, D.A.G., Punjab.
Inability to bring certain judgments to the notice of the court does not constitute a valid ground for review of a judgment.
Headnote:
Review Application - Civil Procedure - The court dismissed the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the inability to bring certain judgments to the notice of the court does not constitute a valid ground for review.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought a review of the court's order, claiming that certain judgments were not considered during the original proceedings, and higher pay scale should have been granted to him from an earlier date.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the review application and dismissed it, emphasizing that the inability to bring certain judgments to the notice of the court does not warrant a review of the judgment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the inability to bring certain judgments to the notice of the court constituted a valid ground for review of the original judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere fact that some judgments could not be brought to the notice of the court does not constitute a valid ground for review of the judgment.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J. - This is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for review of the order dated 8.1.1996 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that certain judgments of the Supreme Court of India and High Courts could not be brought to the notice of the Division Bench when the matter was being argued. If such judgments are taken into consideration, there is possibility of the Court taking a different view than the one expressed in the judgment. He contends that higher pay scale should have to be granted to him w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not from the date of recommendation of his case by the Chief Conservator Punjab, Forests Department. This contention was dealt with by the Division Bench and it was concluded as under :-
"It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that his client is entitled to the grant of higher pay scale w.e.f 1.1.86 on the basis of recommendation of the Third Pay Commission. We are not impressed by the argument of learned counsel. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is allowed the grant of pay scale of Rs. 950- 1800 w.e.f. the date of recommendation of his case by the Chief Conservator of Forests.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside Annexure P/5, with a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 950-1800 w.e.f. March 5, 1993."
3. I am afraid that the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is without substance. The mere fact that some judgments could not be brought to the notice of the Court, cannot constitute a valid ground for review of the judgment of the Division Bench.
4. I find no merit in this review application and the same is dismissed.
Review application dismissed.
