Review petition dismissed where petitioner failed to challenge adequacy of an impugned order passed in his presence but later sought recall, alleging change of advocate rendered consent void.
Review petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO.65 OF 2008
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.724 OF 2008
Shri Ramesh K. Rathod
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr.Vinvent X. D’Silva for the petitioner.
Mr.Thomas Almeida for respondent No.3.
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 02nd July 2008
P.C.
.The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition
in this Court being Writ Petition No.724 of 2008
challenging the order passed by the Administrator
and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division,
Bombay on 03rd January, 2008 in an appeal under
section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971 (for short ‘Slum Act’). The contention was
that he is being evicted in execution of a decree
2
for possession passed in favour of respondent
No.3. That was in a suit filed in the Court of
Small Causes at Bombay. The contention of the
petitioner was that unless and until the
competent authority under the Slum Act grants
permission, the decree cannot be executed.
However, the competent authority granted such
permission, which was challenged before the
Administrator in appeal. Thus against the
concurrent orders permitting execution of decree
for possession the writ petition was filed.
2.After hearing both sides at length and
expressing the view that the Court is not
inclined to go into factual aspects in the
limited jurisdiction, both sides agreed to the
order that was passed by the Court. The
petitioner did not press his challenge to the
impugned orders. He was very much present in the
Court when the order was passed. His advocate
took instructions from him after explaining to
him the implications and consequences flowing
from the consent given by him. In such
3
circumstances, by mere change of advocate the
consent order cannot be recalled. The petitioner
cannot now turn around and allege that he was
unaware of what was transpiring in the Court.
The tendency of the litigant to indulge in all
such tactics cannot be encouraged, more so, when
the orders are passed in their presence. Review
Petition is dismissed. However, there will be no
orders as to costs.
(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)
Shri Ramesh K. Rathod
State of Maharashtra
S.C. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court