Dismissed

R S R T C through M D and Others v. Gulam Sarvar

Rajasthan HC20 May 2024CRW/21/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a civil review petition filed by the appellant against a second appeal judgment. The court held the petition to be a misuse of process and frivolous, citing the eight-year delay and the absence of a new substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed at a cost of ₹10,000/- payable to the cost fund.

R S R T C through M D and Others Vs Gulam… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:24221]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 21/2018

¶4

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur., Through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur Raj

¶5

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Chittorgargh Depot.

¶6

Chief Pension And Provident Fund Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Headquarter, Jaipur Raj

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Gulam Sarver S/o Alaudeen, R/o E-31, R.k. Colony, Behind Aabakari Godam, Bhilwar, At Present Ex-Traffic Inspector, Rajasthan State Road Transport Chittorgragh Depot.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Ghiya Mr. Vinod Kumar Mathur

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶13

20/05/2024

¶14

Instant S.B. Civil Review Petition is preferred by petitionerappellant for review of order dated 15.12.2017 in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 264/2013.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner-appellant submits that aggrieved from order dated 31.03.2011 in civil regular appeal No. 37/2011, S.B. Civil Second Appeal was preferred by the appellantdefendants challenging the order on the ground that the Courts below have committed serious error while allowing the claim of respondent-plaintiff. He also submitted that the order was

[2024:RJ-JP:24221]

[CRW-21/2018]

(2 of 5)

erroneous as same was based on wrong application of law based on judgment in case of S.K. Khatri and the judgment of S.K. Khatri was recalled and reviewed, therefore, the order dated 15.12.2017 is required to be reconsidered and recalled in present circumstances.

¶20

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent on the ground that after passing of the order on 15.12.2017 instant review petition was filed on 30.01.2018. He submits that the option before the appellant was to challenge the order dated 15.12.2017 before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP but the appellant has committed serious error by filing the instant review petition, and same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of record indicated that respondent-plaintiff Gulam Sarver has filed a civil suit No. 16/2009 before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaipur City (East), Jaipur and same was decreed on 31.03.2011.

¶21

Aggrieved from aforesaid, a civil regular appeal No. 37/2011 was filed and same was dismissed on 28.05.2013 a by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City. Thus, there were concurrent findings of facts on record.

¶22

Aggrieved from aforesaid, the defendants-appellant has preferred a S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 264/2013 and same was dismissed on 15.12.2017 as no substantial question of law was involved, which required adjudication by this Court. 8. During course of argument, learned counsel for appellant has relied upon judgment in case of Pepsu Road Transport

[2024:RJ-JP:24221]

[CRW-21/2018]

(3 of 5)

Corporation Patiala Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. (2017) 2 SCC 766 and RSRTC and Ors. Vs. Madhugiri (dead) through LRs & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5274/2008) decided on 26.04.2013.

¶27

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering aforesaid judgments has dismissed the civil second appeal. Now, raising the ground that the judgments of the Courts below was passed on S.K. Khatri's case and same was reviewed and recalled. Thus, the order in second appeal need to be recalled.

¶28

Further, the argument of delay of 8 years has escaped from the notice of this Hon'ble Court. Ld. counsel relying upon judgment in case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala Vs. Amandeep Singh & Ors. (supra), RSRTC and Ors. Vs. Madhugiri (supra) submitted that the order passed by this Court on 15.12.2017 was erroneous and the error is apparent on record.

¶29

A perusal of order dated 15.12.2017 indicated that this Court after considering the submissions has found that no substantial question of law was involved, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The order was passed after considering the contentions and grounds raised by the appellants

¶30

The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal was considered recently by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hemavathi Vs. V. Hombegowda 2023 INSC 848, wherein it was held that the High Court can entertain a regular civil second appeal purely on a substantial question of law not even on a question of law or a question of fact. It is a settled law that first Appellate Court is the final Court insofar as facts are concerned

[2024:RJ-JP:24221]

[CRW-21/2018]

(4 of 5)

and it is only the substantial question of law which would arise in a case that the High Court can entertain in a regular second appeal and if at stage of admission such substantial question of law are discerned by the High Court same would have to be framed and the appeal would have to be admitted only after admission and the parties have to be heard on substantial question of law framed by the High Court.

¶35

A perusal of order clearly indicate that this Court after considering the material on record and submissions made by both the counsels found that no substantial substantial question arises from the grounds narrated by the appellant, therefore, Bench has refused to entertain the appeal at the stage of admission.

¶36

Aforesaid clearly indicate that the Court has considered the judgments as referred by learned Senior Advocate for appellant at the time of admission and after considering those judgments (which are again relied upon in the review petition) the appeal was dismissed at the stage of admission. The only remedy before the appellant was to file a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

¶37

Now, the appellant has preferred this review petition on same ground as if this Court has committed an error while reading and interpreting the judgment as referred by learned Senior Advocate at the time of admission. It appears that this review petition is not only a misuse of provision but also a frivolous petition is filed to challenge the order on ground of review. It is a settled proposition that this Court cannot sit as Appellate Court for the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 16. The grounds of review are frivolous and just a misuse of

[2024:RJ-JP:24221]

[CRW-21/2018]

(5 of 5)

process of law, therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

¶42

As a result, instant review petition is dismissed at a cost of ₹10,000/-. The cost is payable in the cost fund of RSLSA. 18. Misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶43

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶44

MONU /62

R S R T C through M D and Others v. Gulam Sarvar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S R T C through M D and Others v. Gulam Sarvar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bhoori Devi W/O Late Shri Bhimaram Yadav, Vs Shri Bajrang Singh S/O Shri Ramchandra Singh

Jaitoon Vs Smt Rashida and Ors.

Arun Kumar Jain Son of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli), Vs Smt. Manorama Wife of Shripalji Daughter of Late Shri Khyalilalji Jain (Jaroli)

Music College Ajmer Vs Amar Nath Bhargava and Ors.

Prem Chand and Ors. Vs Hafizuddin and Ors.

Navratan Agrawal Vs Raghunath