V.N.Misra - (1.) APPEAL No, 1038 of 1977 was listed for hearing on 7-10- 1980 along with one other case of Sri S, I. Jafri. In this case, however, the name of one Sri R. K. Saxena who is comparatively a junior lawyer was also listed along with the name of Sri S. I. Jafri. It seems that Sri Jafri became unwell that day. He, therefore, sent illness slips to be filed both in this case and in his other case which was listed for hearing. His clerk hawever, gave the slip in the other case which was adjourned, but in this case he omitted to give the other illness slip. This case was, therefore, taken up and decided without hearing any one for the applicant. Sri Jafri has now made an application that the order disposing of the case may be recalled and an opportunity may be given to hear him and then the case be decided
(2.) IN State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Agarwala, AIR 1979 SC 87 it was held that once judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. It was further held that the prohibition under section 369 (Old Code) is not restricted to the trial court alone but governs all the courts. The same view has been taken in some other cases also and it has been repeatedly held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the High Court must not review its judgment once it has been signed. The question, however, is whether leave granted to the learned counsel for the applicant for rehearing would amount to review of the judgment. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Mohan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1002 it was held that where proceedings are Jong drawn out and no prima facie case is made out against the accused criminal proceedings may be quashed by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice and rejection of prior application for quashing would be no bar to entertainment of the subsequent application because the quashing of an order does not amount to review or revision of the earlier order of the High Court. If quashing of the earlier order does not amount to review or revision properly speaking an order to give opportunity to the party to argue out his case would also not amount to review of the order. It was held in Swarth Mahto v. Dharmdeo Narain Singh, AIR 1972 SC 1300 (FB) that where the cause list had not been published properly and only number of the appeal had been given the names of the parties and of the advocate had not been given with the result that the advocate of the applicant did not know of his case and without hearing him the case was decided. It was held that it could not be said that the accused was given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, hence the application by him for rehearing of the appeal deserved to be allowed.
(3.) IN the instant case Sri Jafri actually sent an illness slip to be filed in the case, but because of inadvertence by tike clerk the illness slip could not be filed. It is true that Sri R. K. Saxena had filed this appeal and his name was also mentioned as a counsel for the appellant, but he was a junior counsel and everything in this appeal was being done by S'ri Jafri. It is, therefore, obvious that it was Sri Jafri, who was to argue this appeal and when the illness slip could not be filed on his behalf the case was disposed of without hearing him. It cannot therefore, be said that Sri Jafri was gjven any reasonable opportunity of being heard. The order passed by me is, therefore, recalled and another order would be passed after I have heard Sri Jafri, The application is allowed Application allowed.;