SAINT STEPHEN EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. TEJ NATH
LAWS(HPH)-1997-9-11
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on September 05,1997

SAINT STEPHEN EDUCATION SOCIETY Appellant
VERSUS
TEJ NATH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JAYANT MADHAV CHITALE VS. GARWARE WALL ROPES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SRINIVASAN,C.J. - (1.)CMPNo.J07/97 This petition is filed for setting aside the order passed by me in Civil Review No 88 of 1996 in Civil Revision No.34/90 on 4.7.1997 and permitting the petitioner to contest the review petition. The ground on which the prayer is made is that the petitioner was not served in the review petition. I find from the records that it is true. Though I had ordered notice in the review petition, the mistake was committed by the Registry by sending notice to the review, petitioner himself and not to the present petitioner, who was the contesting party. The mistake occurred on account of the confusing cause title in the review petition and the petitioner in the review petition cannot also be blamed for that because that appears to be. the practice in this court to give such cause title. The cause title does not clearly show, who is the applicant in the review petition aid who is the respondent. Unfortunately, this practice has been in vogue for a long time. But, not the Appellate Side Rules have been framed and as per those Rules cause title must clearly show that as to who is the applicant in the miscellaneous application and who is the respondent in the miscellaneous application. According to those Rules, the cause title in the main case may also be stated, so that a mistake may not occur.
(2.)In view of the fact that the petitioner was not served in the review petition, he is entitled to be heard. Consequently. I have heard him today in the review petition. Hence, the order passed by me on. 4.7.1997 in Civil Review i No.88/96 is set aside and it is restored to file. The application is ordered accordingly. Civil Review N0 8896:
(3.)This petition for a review has been filed by die respondent in Civil Revision No.34/90, who obtained an order of eviction under Section 14 of die Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act against the petitioner in the revision petition. There vision petition has been disposed of by an order dated 26.7.1996 on the footing that both the parties have agreed to certain terms. The challenge by the petitioner herein is that he never agreed to the same. It is seen from the records that he was not present in court and his counsel on record was also not in court The Advocate on record was represented by another counsel and the Court has passed the order as if the terms set out in the order were agreed to by both the parties. On the face of it, the order is erroneous inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner here in., had given hit consent or his counsel on record had given his consent. Secondly, the order is not workable and, therefore, it is not in accordance with law. The revision arose out of an order of eviction and the order of eviction has not been set aside by the order passed in the revision. The order merely disposes of the revision petition directing the parties to act in accordance with the compromise. Such an order is unsustainable.


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