A party cannot invoke review jurisdiction to circumvent a court-recorded settlement by disowning previous counsel or alleging unauthorized statements when the records confirm a consensus was reached. Such conduct constitutes an abuse of the judicial process and warrants the imposition of personal costs on the responsible officials.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition seeks review of the order dated 26.02.2026 by trying to disown or embarrass the counsel who appeared for the review petitioners, this time, by engaging a different counsel.

3. In the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another versus N. Raju Reddiar and Another [(1997) 9 SCC 736, the Hon’ble Supreme Court commented that it was a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was referring to the practice of changing Advocates and filing review petitions. The Court held that it is salutary to note that the Court spends valuable time deciding a case. A review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt to argue the matter again on the merits. The Court noted that, in recent times, it has become a practice to file such review petitions as a routine, that too with a change of counsel, without obtaining the consent of the Advocate on record at the earlier stage. The Court held that this is not conducive to the healthy practice of the Bar, which has a responsibility to maintain the profession's salutary practice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court finally dismissed the petition with exemplary costs of Rs 20,000/-, holding it as an abuse of the process of the Court in derogation of healthy practice.

4. Again, in Om Prakash versus Suresh Kumar [(2020) 13 SCC 188], the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a matter, which was disposed of, based on the statement made to the Court by the counsel of the landlord. However, subsequently, the landlord, by changing his Advocate, filed a review petition, asserting that he had never instructed his counsel to make such a statement before the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the conduct of the review petitioner was liable to be deprecated, and such a review petition should not be encouraged and was rightly dismissed by the High Court as an abuse of the judicial process.

5. The above observations apply to the facts of the present case, where the review petitioners, who answer the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, are attempting to wriggle out of a settlement and statements duly recorded in the Court Order by going to the extent of disowning or, in any event, embarrassing their own counsel. At the very outset, we note that Ms Khalida Haya Rashmi, who earlier appeared on behalf of the Review Petitioners, has acted in this matter in the highest traditions of the Bar and, therefore, she did not deserve the treatment now meted out to her by the review petitioners who agitate such matters through public funds which they are expected to hold in trust.

6. In this case, the original petitioners, Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Limited, had primarily three grievances against the 4th and 5th respondents, i.e. the review petitioners herein. The first grievance concerned price variation; the second, the claim for a GST refund; and the third, the labour charges.

7. Considering the nature of disputes and the correspondence on record, this Court opined that an attempt should be made to see whether the matter could be disposed of by an amicable settlement.

8. Accordingly, a meeting was held between the representatives of the original petitioner and the review petitioners on 19.02.2026. The Minutes of the meeting, s