Single Bench dismissed the Review Application filed by the Review Applicants holding that no grounds for invoking review jurisdiction were made out as the facts and legal scenario did not differ from disclosed facts in the earlier judgment.
RVW 172 of 2021 stands dismissed.
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.
13.03.2023 Sl. No.3 Crt. No.11. KB RVW 172 of 2021 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2022
Chandan Kumar Barik & Another - Versus - The State of West Bengal and others.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Manna …. For the review applicants.
Mr. Bibek Jyoti Basu Mr. Uttam Kumar De Ms. Ankita Mukherjee .… For the Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Manna, Learned Counsel, appears for the applicants in the Review Application, being RVW 172 of 2021. RVW 172 of 2021 is directed against the Judgement and Order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of which one of us (Subrata Talukdar, J.) was a member, being MAT 832 of 2019 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2019.
From the Grounds of Review pleaded in the Memorandum of Appeal filed in connection with RVW 172 of 2021, it does not appear to this Court a factual and legal scenario could be established by the Review Applicant different from the facts as stand already disclosed in MAT 832 of 2019.
2
It is submitted on behalf of the Review Applicant that he is an extremely poor person and therefore shall stand to be heavily prejudiced by imposition of the litigation cost as directed to be paid by the Hon’ble Single Bench and affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench.
Per contra, Mr. Basu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Private Respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10, produces before this Court a Registered Deed of Sale disclosing sale of a land for valuable consideration on the part of the Review Applicants. Mr. Basu submits that the Review Applicants are faking a scenario of impoverishment to avoid payment of the litigation costs.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court finds that the Review Application is utterly misconceived. No grounds warranting invocation of the Review Jurisdiction of this Court has been made out.
RVW 172 of 2021 stands thus dismissed .
All parties to act in terms of a copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a factual and legal scenario different from disclosed facts exists to warrant review.
Whether the Review Application is misconceived.
Whether the Review Appeal can be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandan Kumar Barik & Another
The State of West Bengal
Supratim Bhattacharya
Subrata Talukdar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
