Mr. Justice Amit Rawal dismissed a review application by the appellant, holding that it tantamounted to re-agitating grounds of appeal, which is impermissible. The court also dismissed the application regarding delay due to lack of reasonable explanation.
The review application was dismissed with regard to both the merits and the delay.
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.
YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1
RA-RS-1-2019 (O&M)
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RA-RS-1-2019 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.01.2019
Shammi Devi
... Appellant
Versus
Lakesh Kumar @ Rocky
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the review applicant/appellant.
AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL)
The review application tantamounts to re-agitating of the grounds of appeal, which is not permissible in view of the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and another” 2016 (9)
SCC 366 . The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-
''Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to re-open concluded adjudications. This Court, in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under:
11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the Learned Counsel for the opponent is right
YOGESH SHARMA 2019.01.30 10:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2
RA-RS-1-2019 (O&M)
in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.''
In view of the aforementioned observation, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record, much less, no ground is made out for interference and accordingly, the present review application stands dismissed.
There is an application for delay of 181 days in filing the application. The ground and explanation given in the application is not reasonable, much less, cogent and accordingly, the application is also dismissed.
25.01.2019
Yogesh Sharma
( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No
Whether Reportable Yes/ No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review application that re-agitates the grounds of appeal amounts to a permissible re-opening of concluded adjudication.
Whether the explanation for a delay of 181 days in filing the review application is reasonable and cogent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. RoyRelied on¶15
Tamilnadu Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Association Vs. S.K. Roy, The Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and another 2016 (9) SCC 366
Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.Relied on¶17
Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501 · Who else cites this
Shammi Devi
Lakesh Kumar @ Rocky
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
