PATRISHA SYMPLI Vs. NANDITA DAS
LAWS(MEGH)-2013-6-5
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Decided on June 26,2013

Patrisha Sympli Appellant
VERSUS
Nandita Das Respondents

JUDGEMENT

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) IT is nobody's dispute that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a revision petition being CR(P)No.(SH)24/2012, assailing the interim order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong (Judicial) in Misc. Case No.201(T) 2012. This fact is very clear from the pleadings of the revision petitioner in Para -9 of the revision petition, which reads as follows: - "9. That the petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner filed a revision application before this Hon'ble Court against the interim order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong (Judicial) in Misc. Case No.201(T)2012 and the same was registered as CR(P)No.(SH)24/2012 along with Misc. Case No.243/2012 and the same was finally disposed of vide order dated 16.07.2012 with the direction to the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong to expeditiously dispose of the Misc. Case after hearing the parties in accordance with law." The said revision petition i.e. CR(P)No.(SH)24/2012, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2012, which reads as follows: - "16.07.2012 As Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this Revision Petition, the same is dismissed. The learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong will expeditiously dispose of the Misc. Case No.201(T)2012 after hearing both the parties in accordance with law."
(3.) ON bare perusal of the order of this Court dated 16.07.2012, it is crystal clear that the revision petition was dismissed as the revision petition was not pressed. Therefore, it is very clear that no liberty was sought for by the petitioner for filing afresh revision petition. The earlier petition i.e. CR(P)No.(SH)24/2012, challenged the same impugned interim order dated 01.06.2012. In this circumstances, this Court is compelled to make an observation that the Apex Court in a number of cases held that, second revision petition or second writ petition challenging the same order cannot be filed if the earlier revision petition or writ petition, had been dismissed without any liberty for filing afresh revision petition or writ petition as provided under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.