Allahbad High Court
HARISWARUP
Bhagwati Singh - Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation - Respondent
Decided On : 08/12/1976
Review - Adverse Possession - The court held that the finding about adverse possession was a finding of fact not vitiated by any error of law. The application for review based on the counsel's alleged mistake in not relying on certain points was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The application was for the review of a judgment in a writ petition regarding adverse possession. The petitioner sought to argue the writ petition afresh and raise grounds of attack which were not taken by the original counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it was not possible to review the judgment solely to give the petitioner a fresh opportunity. It emphasized that it is not for the litigant to judge the counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application for review based on the alleged mistake of the original counsel was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once a case has been fully argued on merits and decided, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued. It cited precedents to support this principle.
Final Decision: The application for review was dismissed by the court.
2. It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsels wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been fully argued on merits and decided on merits, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued. It was held in the case of S. Anthony v. Francis Anthony, (AIR 1962 Mad 304) that review cannot be granted on the mere ground that the particular counsel who appeared for a party failed to raise a particular point, in spite of instructions. In the present case, there is not even an allegation that the counsel was instructed to argue something and he did not argue it.
3. Learned counsel has relied on the decision in Jamna Kuer v. Lal Bahadur, (AIR 1950 FC 131) in support of his contention that a review lies where the counsel commits a mistake. But that was a case in which a mistake had crept in the judgment of the High Court owing to an oversight. The present case is not such a case. The writ petition was argued by a fully qualified counsel and was decided after full consideration of his arguments. It is not open to an Advocate, subsequently engaged, to judge the wisdom of the Advocate who had argued the case.
4. The application is dismissed.
Application dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.