Back
VIVEK AGARWAL
Raj Kumar Pateriya – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This review petition is filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of order dated 17-1-2023 passed in W. P. No. 26250/2022, Raj Kumar Pateriya vs. State of M. P. and others on the ground that when case was listed on 17-1-2023 in motion hearing S. No. 63 (wrongly mentioned by the petitioner as ‘mother hearing No. 63’) by the time counsel for the petitioner reached the Court, writ petition was dismissed finally without hearing or giving opportunity to the petitioner.
2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Singh and others vs. Chiranjibi Lal and others, (2002) 3 SCC 609, wherein in para 8 it is held that in absence of Advocate for the petitioner, appeal can be dismissed for non prosecution. The High Court ought not to have considered the merits of the case to dismiss the second appeal.
3. Placing reliance on this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Singh (supra), it is submitted that this Court committed a mistake in deciding the petition in absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Shri Sourabh Soni, learned Panel Lawyer appears for the State but, his appearance is formal
The discretionary power of the court in deciding writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the exclusion of writ proceedings from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Limitation Act are not applicable to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
The court affirmed that inordinate delay in seeking relief undermines the ability to obtain reconsideration, emphasizing adherence to strict standards for review under CPC.
The court emphasized that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and findings of fact reached by the tribunal cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceeding....
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
