- (1.) This review application has been filed on the ground that the judgment dated 6.8.2009 has been rendered without noticing the relevant law as already declared by this Court in the case of R.S. Garg v. State of U.P. and others [2000 (3) AWC 2192] and Phulpati Devi v. Asha Jaiswal [2009 (2) ESC 1091].
(2.) The judgment dated 6.8.2009 in this appeal was delivered by a Division Bench comprising of the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice and one of us [A.P.Sahi, J.]. The application was filed and entertained and since the said Division Bench was no longer available, the matter was heard by a Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan and one of us [A.P. Sahi,J.] whereafter notices were issued on 18.2.2011.
(3.) This application came up for hearing before the Bench which was again nominated and came to be presided over by one of us [A.P.Sahi, J.] whereupon the following order was passed on 11.3.2014: - "Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ranjeet Asthana for the appellant in this appeal. We had invited the arguments on the review application from the parties keeping in view the Full Bench decision that has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Heera Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2010 (3) ESC pg. 2091. We had also noticed certain intervening facts and had also expressed a prima facie view as to why the review application deserves to be entertained vide order 17.2.2014. Today it was pointed out by the Court to Sri Indra Raj Singh about the explanation appended to Rule 2 of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code calling upon him to answer the aforesaid proposition to which he responded by citing a decision in the case of B.C.C.I. and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others reported in 2005 (4) SCC pg. 741 (paragraphs 88 to 94) contending that on the facts of this case the judgment being a mistake of court, the review petition is maintainable. Having perused the aforesaid decision and the ratio thereof, we find that there is no consideration of the explanation to Rule 2 of Order 47 aforesaid and in such circumstances, Sri Indra Raj Singh prays for further time to study the matter and respond to the aforesaid query of the Court. List in the next cause list." ;