The High Court Bench dismissed Review Petition No.155 of 2017, finding that the scope for review was limited and no entertainable grounds existed. The decision referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support the view that the review was not viable.
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.
RVWPET No.155 of 2017
Perused the grounds taken in this review application as well as the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2012 on 27.06.2017. Looking to the grounds raised herein, this Court finds, no such ground can be entertained involving the Review Petition, as the scope of the Court is very limited. This view of this Court is also well supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Sow. Chandra Kanta and another, Petitioners versus Sheik Habib. Respondents as reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1500 . It clarified that direction for registering the instrument as per the order dated 27.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.18659 of 2012 shall however subject to compliance of the legal requirements.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Review Petition, which is dismissed accordingly.
.……….……………..…
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
Ayas
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can entertain a review petition given the limited scope of review and directions in the earlier judgment.
Whether the grounds raised in the review petition justify entertaining the application under the limitations identified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sow. Chandra Kanta and another, Petitioners versus Sheik Habib. RespondentsFollowed¶3
AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1500 · Who else cites this
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
