Review petitions must be filed by original counsel unless consent is obtained, reflecting the need for professional conduct.

Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

08/08/2025

1. Heard Mr. Syed A.H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Govt.

Advocate, appearing for respondent / State.

2. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing the judgment dated 15/04/2025 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.

233/2025.

3. From perusal of the order sought to be reviewed and the materials available on record, it is apparent that Writ Appeal No. 233/2025., which was filed by the writ appellant / review petitioner herein against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 1065/2025, whereby the petition filed by Respondent No. 1/ Bank challenging order dated 16.01.2025 passed by District Magistrate Surguja under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act , 2002 was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of materials available on record and after hearing learned counsel for appellant i.e. Ms. Rajni Soren as well as Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent No. 1/ Bank therein vide order dated 15/04/2025, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the writ appellant/ review petitioner and the present review petition has been filed by the another counsel, who was not counsel in the said writ appeal, for reviewing the said order.

4. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the review petition has filed by the new counsel, he states that as his client has instructed him to file the review petition, hence, he has filed the instant review petition. Be that as it may.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar & Anr, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736 has deprecated the practice of filing successive applications after decision of the case and that too, by engaging different Counsel. The aforesaid judgment is being reproduced below:

"1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-opposite party when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K.

Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as under:

"The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when