This review petition was dismissed as it was filed by a counsel other than the one involved in the final hearing. The court held that the scope for review is limited, relying on a Supreme Court precedent, and noted that lawyers were absent due to a Bar Association resolution.
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.170 of 2017
In view of the resolution passed by the Orissa High Court Bar Association, the lawyers have abstained themselves from attending the Court.
Perused the grounds taken in this review application as well as the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.15036 of 2005 on 10.07.2017. 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 . Law is also fairly well settled that there should not be filing of a review application by a counsel other than the counsel who had participated in the final hearing of the proceeding vide W.P.(C) No.15036 of 2005.
Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Review Petition, which is dismissed accordingly.
.……….……………..…
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
Ayas
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be entertained when filed by a counsel other than the one who participated in the final hearing.
Whether the grounds raised in the review petition extend beyond the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Whether the review petition should be entertained in light of the Bar Association resolution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sow. Chandra Kanta and another, Petitioners versus Sheik Habib. RespondentsExplained¶4
AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1500 · Who else cites this
Petitioners in RVWPET No.170 of 2017
Respondents in RVWPET No.170 of 2017
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
