Back
K.K. Lahoti and K.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Heeralal & others v. Shiv Kumar and another
M.C.C. No. 135 of 2007 (J); Decided on 6.7.2009.*
flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk] 1908&& vk- 41 fu- 1 & iqufoZyksdu & ‘kfDr;k¡ cgqr lhfer gSa & U;k;ky; vihy U;k;ky; dh Hkkafr dk;Z ugh dj ldrk & ;fn vk- 47 fu- 1 ds v/khu vk/kkjksa dk vfLrRo ugha gS rc fdlh vf/kdkfjrk dk voyac ugha fy;k tk ldrk pkgs vkns‘k xyr gh D;ksa u gksA ¼iSjk 3
1. This application is filed seeking review of the order dated 3.72006 in M.C.C. No. 22712005 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the application filed by the applicants LA. No. 1181/2005 seeking condonation of delay. There was delay of three years in filing application for restoration of Second Appeal No. 415/2001.
2. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the earlier counsel had not informed the applicants in respect of dismissal of the second appeal and in these circumstances, the application could not be filed within time.
3. From the perusal of the order dated 3.7.2006 in M.C.C. No. 227/2005, we find that the learned Single Judge considered the grounds stated in application LA. No. 1181/2005 and found that the aforesaid grounds were not conviction and dismissed the application on merits. As the application seeking convincing of delay in M.C.C. No. 277/2005 was dismissed, the learned Single Judge dismissed the M.C.C. No. 227/2005 also. This Court while considering the review application cannot sit as an appellate Court on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The scope 0 review is very limited and we cannot review the order beyond the parameters as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. The applicants could not convince us that the grounds as enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. exist in this case, though she tried to convince this Court that on merits the order was erroneous, but in our considered opinion, even if the order is erroneous, we cannot review the order invoking jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this review application. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
As we have considered the case on merits, so it is not necessary for this Court to consider I.A. No. 2487/2007 seeking condonation of delay of 130 days in filing this application. This application is also dismissed.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
