Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Jag Mohan Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kanchan Kumari Jain – Respondents
Civil Misc Review Application No.432 of 2023
Decided on : 31-10-2023
Review Application - Maintainability - U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 - [No. 16 of 2021, Section 10] - The court dismissed the review application on the ground of maintainability, citing various judgments that established the principle that a review application filed by a subsequent counsel who had not argued the original case is not maintainable. The court emphasized that allowing such applications would lead to an unending process and would be a gross misuse of the legal process.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed by one counsel, and the review application was filed by a different counsel without obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate'. The court had to decide whether the review application was maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review application was not maintainable as it was filed by a subsequent counsel who had not argued the original case. The court cited various judgments to support its finding.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the review application filed by a subsequent counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on established legal principles and judgments to conclude that a review application filed by a subsequent counsel who had not argued the original case is not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the review application on the ground of maintainability.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Balwinder Singh Suri along with Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant/petitioner and Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for opposite party/respondent.
2. Present review application has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
(b) And/or to stay the effect and operation of the order, judgment dated 03.08.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (A) No. 7428 of 2023 (Judgment dated 03.08.2023 Reserved on 23.05.2023 and Delivered on 03.08.2023) till the Reserved on 23.05.2023 and Delivered on 03.08.2023) final disposal of the present Review Application, failing thereby will result in express prejudice and irreparable loss and injury to the Applicant/Petitioner.
(c) And/or to allow to bring on record certain legal documents which are germane and which after due diligence could not be filed at the time of passing of order and judgment by this Hon’ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (A) No. 7428 of 2023, Reserved on 23.05.2023 and Delivered on 03.08.2023.
(d) And/ or to summon the entire record of the Petition/Writ (A) No. 7428 of 2023.
(e) And/or to summon the entire lower court record as well pertaining to both proceedings-under section 10 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 bearing case No. 696 of 2022 pending before the Rent Authority, Agra and Execution proceedings.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that Writ-A No. 7428 of 2023 has been filed by Sri Pankaj Agarwal, upon which a detail counter affidavit has also been filed by Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for opposite party/respondent. Final hearing of the writ petition took place on 23.05.2023. Sri Pankaj Agarwal has argued the case on behalf of petitioner whereas it was argued by Sri Sudeep Harkauli on behalf of opposite party/respondent and ultimately, judgment was reserved on the same day. Later on it was pronounced on 03.08.2023 dismissing the writ petition.
4. Now, Sri Balwinder Singh Suri along with Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Advocates has filed present review application for reviewing the order dated 03.08.2023.
5. Sri Harkauli has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of review application. He submitted that Writ-A No. 7428 of 2023 was filed and argued by Sri Pankaj Agrawal whereas present review application has been filed by Sri Balwinder Singh Suri along with Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey, therefore, in the light of pronouncements made by Apex Court as well as this Court, review application is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court passed in Ram Prasad Shukla vs.Suraj Lal and Ors.; 2017 (122) ALR 144, Mohd. Kaleem vs. Sumitra Devi and Ors.; 2021 (144)ALR 651 and Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs. M/s. Gool Poput and others; 2021 (8)ADJ 123.
6. Sri Suri, learned counsel for applicant opposed the submissions of Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for opposite party and submitted that review application is maintainable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court as well as Apex Court in the matters of Sharda Prasad Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 60191 of 2006) decided on 10.10.2013, Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr.; 2009 (75) ALR 329 (Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2009)(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6382 of 2007) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and others; (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581.
7. I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.
8. This fact is undisputed that writ petition was filed and argued by Sri Pankaj Agarwal on behalf of petitioner. Further, present review application is filed by Sri Balwinder Singh Suri along with Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey on behalf of applicant/petitioner, who were not the counsels in writ petiti
A review application filed by a subsequent counsel who had not argued the original case is not maintainable.
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used as a means to reargue the case.
Point of Law : Court find ourselves unable to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the review petitioner and Court do not find any error, much less an error apparent on the face of ....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
A review petition cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law; it must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that was not previously available.
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
