Back
2009 Supreme(All) 2711
2009 (77) ALR 105
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
TARUN AGARWALA, J.
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DEPUTY G.M., WESTERN ZONE, MEERUT
Versus
Vth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ETAH and others
C.M.W.P. No. 1620 of 1985
Decided on: July 28, 2009
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sameer Sharma.
Review applications are limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-open the entire case or grant an injunction.
Headnote:
Injunction - Review Application - No injunction could be granted on the review application
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a review application after an ex parte injunction was vacated, and the Lower Appellate Court granted an injunction, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that no injunction could be granted on the review application as review applications are only meant to correct errors apparent on the face of the record and do not entitle the Court to re-open the entire case or grant an injunction.
Issues: Validity of injunction granted through review application
Ratio Decidendi: Review applications are not meant to re-open the entire case or grant an injunction
Final Decision: The order passed by the Lower Appellate Court on the review application was deemed patently illegal and quashed. The writ petition was allowed.
TARUN AGARWALA, J.--List has been revised. The learned Counsel for respondent is not present. Heard Shri Sameer Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Initially, the Trial Court granted an ex parte injunction, but subsequently, the ex parte injunction was vacated. The plaintiff filed a miscellaneous appeal, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, it transpires that, a review application was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed and an injunction was granted by the Lower Appellate Court. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.
3. In my opinion, no injunction could be granted on the review application. The review applications are only meant to correct the error apparent on the face of the record and does not entitle the Court to re-open the entire case or rehear the matter or grant an injunction.
4. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court on the review application was patently illegal and cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Petition Allowed.
