Back
BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Divisional Forest Officer (T) – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Tshering Bhutia – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition basis and procedural context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's analysis on review standards and prior decisions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. reduction of imposed cost in review order. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
1. This is a review petition filed under Rule 44 and 45 of the Sikkim High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011 read with Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking review of the cost imposed upon the appellants vide order dated 10.03.2022. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General. On 02.06.2022 pursuant to the notice issued in the review petition the respondent appeared in person and stated that he had nothing to submit insofar as the review petition is concerned. The respondent is not present today. The review petition is based on three facts stated therein i.e.:-
(i) That the matter had been fixed on 01.03.2022 for hearing on which date the learned Additional Advocate General was available to argue the matter however, due to unavailability of this bench matter was fixed on 10.03.2022 by the registry without consulting the learned counsel.
(ii) The learned Additional Advocate General had been engaged to appear before th
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record; issues requiring reasoning do not constitute grounds for review.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The Court reaffirmed that costs imposed for procedural negligence are not appealable and serve to discourage future lapses.
The court established that costs imposed by a Tribunal can be reviewed and set aside if compliance with the Tribunal's orders is demonstrated and the affected party does not insist on the payment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the review process cannot be used to re-open settled issues or seek re-hearing of the original petition. It also emphasizes the limited scope ....
The court emphasized that routine adjournments in civil proceedings undermine justice, necessitating strict adherence to statutory limits and the imposition of costs for delays.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
