Skip to main content

Once review petition is dismissed, only the main order can be challenged, not the order dismissing the review petition

In Ramvati Vs. Sukhbir Singh Chauhan and Ors., the High Court of Delhi referring to the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Yashwant Singh Negi held that, once the Court has refused to entertain the review petition and the same is dismissed, there is no question of any merger and the aggrieved person has to challenge the main order and not the order dismissing the review petition because to the dismissal of the review petition the principle of merger does not apply. Reference was made to DSR Steel (Private) Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan laying down that, when the review petition is dismissed, the order of which review was sought, suffers neither any reversal nor an alteration or modification and anyone aggrieved by the order of which review was sought shall have to challenge the same and not the order dismissing the review petition. Applying the said principles, the SLP preferred against the order of dismissal of review petition, without challenging the order of which review was sought, was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed. 

Even if a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was held to be maintainable, it would be maintainable on the well recognized grounds, of the Court having exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it or having exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity and which is not found to be the case. It is not as if the learned Civil Judge has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in her of review or has exercised the same with material irregularity. The view taken by the learned ADJ, of there being no error within the meaning of Order XL VII Rule 1 of the CPC in the order of which review was sought, is a well reasoned view in accordance with law. There is thus no merit in the petition which is dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more