The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an S.B. Misc. Application seeking recall of an order rejecting a review petition dismissing a review of a second appeal. The Court held it lacks jurisdiction to review an order on review and that second review is impermissible.
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.
[2023/RJJD/014663]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Misc. Application No. 68/2019
M/s Singhvi Stones P Ltd, Bamman Tukda, Kevla Amet Raod, Tehsil And District Rajsamand, Through Its Brother And Authorized Representative Of Director, Shri Babu Lal Singhvi S/o Chunilal Singhvi, Aged 59 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Kelwa, Tehsil And District Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate with |
|---|---|
| Mr. Sourabh Kant Vyas | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Saraswat with Mr. Shubham Modi |
| Mr. Udit Mathur |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
11/05/2023
[2023/RJJD/014663]
[CMAP-68/2019]
(2 of 4)
authorized representative of the Director of the petitioner company was present in person and on the said date, the review petition as preferred by the petitioner was rejected. However while dismissing the review petition an observation as under was made:
“However, before parting, it may be observed that if any Scheme for disposal of VCRs by respondent-AVVNL is still in vogue, then, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach competent authority for redressal of his grievances and the competent authority may consider his case in terms of the Scheme, strictly in accordance with law.”
[2023/RJJD/014663]
[CMAP-68/2019]
(3 of 4)
(4 of 4) [CMAP-68/2019]
[2023/RJJD/014663]
hearing. The lawyers were themselves on their own will, abstaining from work and even otherwise, the party was present in person before the Court. Moreover, the order has been passed on merits and not dismissed in non-prosecution. Further it is not denied that the petitioner has already taken the advantage of the liberty as granted by the Court vide the order of review.
(REKHA BORANA),J
39-AbhishekS/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review an order dismissing a review petition.
Whether an order passed under Section 151 CPC to recall a review rejection is maintainable.
Whether the rejection of a second review application (review of review) is permissible in law.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Singhvi Stones P Ltd
Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd
Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Nigam Ltd
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
