Dismissed

Harbans Kaur v. Darshan Lal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Nov 2024RA-CR/134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application against a judgment enhancing motor accident compensation with recovery rights from driver and owner. The court held the application not maintainable as it was filed by a new advocate who had neither appeared nor argued the original matter, relying on Supreme Court precedent deprecating change of counsel for review, and dismissed it.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harbans Kaur Vs Darshan Lal and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

RA-CR-134-2024 IN FAO-1929-2006

¶2

-1-

¶3

101

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

RA-CR-134-2024 IN FAO-1929-2006 Date of Decision: 26.11.2024

Harbans Kaur

......Appellant

Vs.

Darshan Lal and others

¶10

......Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶12

Present : Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Goel, Advocate, Mr. D.S.Batalvi, Advocate, and Mr. Sourabh Kaushik, Advocate, for the applicants/respondents No.1 and 2.

¶13

Ms. Simran, Advocate, for Mr. Pradeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

¶14

¶15

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

¶16

The present review application has been filed by Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for reviewing the judgment dated 01.10.2024 passed by this Court in FAO-1929-2006, whereby Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment with liberty to recover the said amount from respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶17

In the present case, the review application has been filed by Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, now representing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, who was neither the filing counsel nor he was present at the time

¶18

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2024.11.30 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RA-CR-134-2024 IN FAO-1929-2006 -2-

¶20

of passing of the order dated 01.10.2024. Since the matter was argued at length by Mr. M.S.Bhatti, Advocate, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, and the judgment was passed in his presence, therefore, the present review petition is not maintainable, as the present review application is not filed by the said counsel.

¶21

Hon’ble the Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated the conduct of the parties of changing their counsel and filing review petitions. Support qua the same can be drawn from the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in T.N. Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. [(1997) 9 SCC 736] wherein it has been held as under :

¶22

“It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, 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 on record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to not that Court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the

¶23

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2024.11.30 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RA-CR-134-2024 IN FAO-1929-2006

¶25

-3-

¶26

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, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy,J., was a member, has held as under:

¶27

“The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was heard and decided on merits. The Review Petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That part, he has not obtained "No Objection Certificate" from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No Objection Certificate" would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-onRecord is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue

¶28

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2024.11.30 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

RA-CR-134-2024 IN FAO-1929-2006

¶30

-4-

¶31

the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition.”

¶32

Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy had for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.”

¶33

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present review application and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE

¶36

26.11.2024 Virrendra

¶37

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶38

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2024.11.30 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Harbans Kaur v. Darshan Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harbans Kaur v. Darshan Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balkar Singh Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs Hunardeep Singh and Others

Paramjit Singh Vs Om Parkash and Ors.

Ram Chander Vs Rajender Sharma and Ors.

Atma Ram Vs Subhash and Ors.

Prem Lata and Others Vs Mohan Lal and Others