Decided on July 11,1997



M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)This is a most frivolous review petition I have come across in this Court. The first submission of learned Counsel is that when the revision petition was taken up, he was not present in the Court and he came only when the judgment was being dictated. Even assuming so he was not prevented by the Court from making his submissions. Paragraph 6 of the judgment says that he put forward a point of limitation. That was considered and decided in the judgment. If learned Counsel had other points, he ought to have put forward the same before the Court at that time itself. He did not do so. There is no explanation for not doing so. In this review petition, it is stated that the arguments in detail could not be addressed on 30 -11 -1996. There is no explanation as to why they could not be addressed on that date by learned Counsel at that time when he was present in the Court.
(2.)The following contentions are now urged. These contentions ought to have been put foward by learned Counsel when the revision petition was being disposed of, but none of them was put forward. Hence, he is not entitled to raise the same at this stage. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Collector of 24 Parganas and others v. Lalith Mohan Mullick and others, AIR 1988 SC 2121, a new ground cannot be raised for the first time in a reviw petition and it cannot be considered. However, I proceed to hear him and will dispose of every one of the contentions at present.
(3.)The first contention is that the revision petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the suit was dismissed already. That fact has been taken note of by my judgment in Paragraph 7. It was brought to my notice by the Counsel that the suit was dismissed for default already, but an application to restore the suit had been preferred and was still pending. Taking note of that fact, I have observed that if the application to restore the suit was allowed, the revisional order will be given effect and if the application was dismissed, the order passed in the revision petition will have no effect. Hence, there is no merits in this contention. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anokhe Lal v. Radhamohan Bansal and others, AIR 1997 SC 257. In that case, the Court observed that no suit was pending either in the trial Court or in the Appellate Court when the High Court took up the revision of the 1st respondent for argument and there was no need or occasion to pass an order for impleading a person as a new party in the suit. On the facts of that case, it is seen that there was no application for restoring the suit. When the suit was disposed of and there was no application of restoring the suit, in the circumstances the Supreme Court held that the revision petition could not have been considered and no order should have been made for impleading the new party in the suit. That ruling will have no application whatever in .he present case.

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