Decided on July 13,2012

Ravi Shankar Joshi Appellant


BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) THERE has been 29 days delay in preferring the present review application. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and, being satisfied with the sufficiency of reasons furnished therein, we allow the application (CLMA No. 6708 of 2012) and thereby condone the delay in preferring the review application.
(2.) AFTER the judgment and order under review was passed, Rule 1(3) (i -a) of the Uttarakhand Procedure for Direct Recruitment For Group "C" Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission) Rules 2008 has been substituted with effect from the date of making of the said Rules. By reason of the substitution, thus, made, the whole basis of the judgment under review has been taken away. That appears to be the reason for filing the present review application. It was contended that such substitution, made subsequent to passing of the judgment and order, is sufficient reason for review as provided in Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of the said contention, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Raja Shatrunji Vs. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan and others reported in 1971 (2) SCC 200, has been relied. In that case, a beneficial legislation had been made to give relief to debtors. The Act, by which such relief was to be given, empowered the Court to grant such relief only in case debt was covered by mortgage. In a judgment, the Honble Allahabad High Court pointed out that in view of the nature of the words used in the legislation, the Courts are not in a position to grant relief sought to be granted by the said Act, unless the debt is charged by mortgage. This finding led the Government to correct the legislation. By the correction, thus, made, debt should be charged to mortgage did not remain a fetter for the Court to grant relief as was proposed in the Act. One of the debtors sought relief. The Court refused to grant him relief for the selfsame reason. On 27th November, 1962, the judgment of the High Court, on the plea of the debtor, was pronounced. On that date, the amendment to the Statute did not come into force. The same came on 4th December, 1962. The debtor, accordingly, applied for review of the order of the High Court. High Court reviewed the order holding that the amendment to the Statute, which became effective from the date of the Statute, under which relief was sought, would come within the words "any other sufficient reason"contained in Order XLVII of the Code by using ejusdem generic clause since after exercise of due diligence, review applicant could not discover the matter, which was discovered by him on noticing the change in the law effected. Honble Supreme Court affirmed the said view.
(3.) LEARNED Chief Standing Counsel wanted us to apply the same principle in the instant case. We think that the law propounded in the said judgment has got no bearing to the case at hand, inasmuch as, only by the judgment and order under appeal, it was pointed out by this Court that the manner in which the State was proceeding to consider as to what Rule 1(3)(i -a) of the 2008 Rules meant, the words used therein did not make the same to mean the same and only then the amendment was brought in by the State for the purpose of negativing the judgment and order under review. That will not come within the words "any other sufficient reason". The review application fails and the same is dismissed.;

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