JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this court dismissing Special Appeal No. 349 of 2022.

2. The first ground pressed by the learned counsel for the review-applicant is that the judgment was not pronounced as per the procedure prescribed by Chapter VII, Rule 1 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The aforesaid Rule provides as follows:

“1. Pronouncing of judgment:

(1) After a case has been heard judgment may be pronounced either at once or on some future date 60 of which notice shall be given to the Advocates of the parties:

Provided that notification in the Cause List shall be deemed to be sufficient notice.

(2) Where a case is heard by two or more Judges and judgments is reserved, their judgment or judgments, may be pronounced by any one of them. If no such Judge be present such judgment or judgments may be pronounced by any other Judge.

(3) Where a case is heard by a Judge sitting alone and judgment is reserved, his judgment may, in his absence, be pronounced by any other Judge.”

The purpose of the aforesaid Rule is that the judgment delivered by the Court should be known to the parties.

3. The aforesaid Rule provides that after a case has been heard, the judgment may be pronounced either at once, or on some future date, of which notice shall be given to the Advocates of the parties. It further provides that notification in the cause-list shall be deemed to be ‘sufficient notice’. After a case has been heard, the judgment may be pronounced either at once, or on some future date. This Rule is a Rule of Procedure and it does not confer any substantive right on any party. The Rule does not provide any adverse consequence of the entire judgment not being pronounced in open Court immediately. In our considered view, the aforesaid Procedural Rule is merely directory in nature.

4. The judgments are normally pronounced in open court. In some cases, where the dictation of judgment is expected to consume a very long time, the judgments are reserved. It is also a common practice that at times the Courts pronounce the list of the judgment and the outcome of the case in the open Court, and the detailed judgments are dictated in the Chamber so as to utilise the time of working on the dias, which would have been consumed in dictation of the complete judgment, in the interest of judicial work by hearing and deciding some other cases. In the present case also, list of the judgment and the outcome of the Appeal was pronounced in open court and the detailed judgment was dictated subsequently in the Chamber.

5. Therefore, we do not find force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Review-Applicant that as the complete judgment was not pronounced in open Court, it becomes unsustainable in law. Thus, we reject the first submission of the learned Counsel for the Review-Applicant.

6. The next ground taken by the learned Counsel for the Review-Applicant is that the Special Appeal was heard by a Division Bench, consisting of two Judges, one of whom was appointed under Article 217 of the Constitution of India, whereas the other Judge was appointed under Article 224 of the Constitution of India and the formation of the Bench was against the spirit of the Constitution of India.

7. The Constitution of the Bench was known to the learned Counsel for the review-applicant at the time of making his submissions in support of the Special Appeal and still he preferred to advance his submissions in support of the Special Appeal and he took a chance of getting a judgment which would be favourable to the Appellant. This ground has been taken by him for the first time in review application, after the Special Appeal was dismissed. It is settled law that a new ground cannot be raised for the first time in review application.

8. However, the learned Counsel for the Review-Applicant has submitted that he has taken this Ground in several other cases and in none of the cases i