This court dismissed a review petition filed by the State seeking to review an order in W.P.(C) No.1525 of 2018, holding that no case for review or for condonation of delay was made out as there was no error on the face of the order.
Review petition and I.A. 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.
RVWPET NO.239 OF 2018
07. 13.09.2019 RVWPET No.239 OF 2018 AND
I.A. No.287 of 2018
Heard learned Addl. Government Advocate for the petitioners.
BP
The Apex Court in the case of Sow Chandra Kanta and another V. Sheik Habib reported in AIR 1975 SC 1500 held that a review proceeding must be subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained. Review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.
2
Accordingly the Review Petition is dismissed. The I.A. is disposed of as such.
.....�..�.�.��.. S.Panda, J.
K.R.Mohapatra, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition should be entertained when no glaring omission or patent mistake is apparent in the earlier order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sow Chandra Kanta and another V. Sheik HabibReferred¶9
AIR 1975 SC 1500 · Who else cites this
State and its functionaries
S. Panda
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
