A delayed review petition seeking reconsideration of a disposed appeal was dismissed after the court refused to condone the 630-day delay, observing that filing such petitions routinely with a change of counsel is an abuse of the process of the court.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:25476 RP No. 599 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI REVIEW PETITION NO. 599 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DATED 22-02-2020 AND REGISTERED ON 21-05-2020, HAVING ITS ESTATE OFFICE AT KALASA, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR-577 124. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS.
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KUMARASWAMY.A.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
ARVIND.J.KOTECHA SON OF JERAM KOTECHA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAM MAHAL, 6TH FLOOR,
NC: 2024:KHC:25476 RP No. 599 of 2023
DINSHA WATCH ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020.
…RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE C.P.C., 1908, PRAYED TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2021, PASSED IN MFA.NO.3567 OF 2020.
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Kumaraswamy.A.B., learned counsel for the review petitioners has appeared in person.
The captioned Review Petition is listed today for orders regarding non-compliance of office objections. It is heard finally.
The Review Petition is filed to review the order passed by this Court on 26th March, 2021 in M.F.A. No.3567/2020.
Learned counsel Sri.Kumaraswamy.A.B., submits that the review petitioners are the appellants in the appeal. Counsel further submits there is a delay of 630 days in filing the Review Petition. Accordingly, an application in I.A.No.01/2024 has been filed to condone the delay of 630 days in filing the Review Petition. Counsel therefore submits that he may be heard.
NC: 2024:KHC:25476 RP No. 599 of 2023
Heard, the submission made on behalf of the review petitioner.
As could be seen from the records, this Court on the 26th day of March, 2021 has disposed of the Miscellaneous First Appeal on the merits. The review petitioners were the appellants in the appeal, they have been duly represented by leaned Senior counsel Sri.Udaya Holla. After disposal of the appeal, Sri.Kumaraswamy.A.B., advocate has filed the captioned Review Petition.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has categorically held that, when a case is disposed of, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate who was not an advocate on record in the main case. It is salutary to note that Court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel.
NC: 2024:KHC:25476 RP No. 599 of 2023
In the present case also, the appellants were represented by learned Senior counsel Sri.Udaya Holla., and the appeal was heard extensively and disposed of. Strangely, an attempt is made by the review petitioners to file the Review Petition with the change of counsel belatedly. There is a delay of 630 days in filing the Review Petition. This Court is declined to condone the delay. I have no hesitation is saying and concluding that this is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and that too practice of changing advocates and filing a Review Petition should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of the administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.
I can say only this much that this is totally a abuse of the process of law and also precious public time is wasted. Hence, the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it
is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
2 issues framed by the court
Should the delay of 630 days in filing the review petition be condoned?
Is the belated review petition with change of counsel an abuse of process liable to be dismissed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mavinakere Estate
Prabhudas D. Kotecha
Rupin Prabhudas Kotecha
Arvind J. Kotecha
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
