Shantilal Manganlal and Anr. versus Chunnilal Ranchoddas through Lrs. and Ors.

Petition for Special Leave and Petltion for Review-If the petition filed without giving the grounds of appeal they will be dismi.•·sed a.1 frivolous and an abuse of the process of law-Order XVI and XL of Supreme Court Rules 1966-Duty of advocate. to court in filing pet/lions •

¶14

An app1ication for review against the order of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition dated 9.12.83 was filled without disclosing any ground fur review. It \Vas averred that the petition was being filed so as to be within the limitation prescribed under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and that further grounds would be filed if advised. However 1 nothing was done though more than six months had elapsed by the da'.e of bearing.

¶15

Dismissing the petition, expressing its deep dissatisfaction and anguish with the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for Special LcJ.ve and petitions for Review were being filed in the Supreme Court, [206A]

c

D

E

HELD : The application for review was nothing short of an abuse 'of the process of the court, a waste of the tl_me of the Court and was entirely frivolous.

¶20

CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 249 of 1984.

¶21

F

¶22

In

¶23

Special Leace Petition (C) No. 13618 of 1983

¶24

G

¶25

CHAMBER MATTER-By Circulation

¶26

The Order of the Court was delivered by

¶27

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J, Thispplication for Review is nothin

If

206

(I 985] I S.C.R.

A

B

c

D

E

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶37

short of an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of the time of this Court, time which has now become so dear and prec'ous because of the daily mounting arrears. No ground for seeking a review ismen tioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first paragraph of the petition it is stated "This is an application for Review of the order dated 9.12. 83, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the above Snecial Leave to Appeal (Civil). The said order discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be clear from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in the petition. for Special Leave to Appeal. ft is submitted that since ·the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the ca,e, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the order". Jn the second paragrnph we are told that no detailed grounds have been taken (though in point of fact not a single ground is even mentioned) as limitation is about to expire and "If so advised, further set of grounds would be submitted for the consideration of the Hon'ble Court" The petition was filed on 9 1.1984 and nothing has been done though more than six months have passed since then. The offer to file detailed grounds remains an unredeemed promise. Possibly he was advised to file no further grounds as there was none to be submitted. Good words were not to be thrown away after bad. To that extent, we may consider ourselves spared. We must however express our deep dissatisfaction and anguish with the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for special leave and petitions for review are being filed. The present application is entirely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Petition dismissed.

¶39

S.R.

¶40

,

Shantilal Manganlal and Anr. v. Chunnilal Ranchoddas through Lrs. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantilal Manganlal and Anr. v. Chunnilal Ranchoddas through Lrs. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J. K. Bharati versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. .

Sukh Deo Narain versus State of Rajasthan

Katheeja Bai versus the Superintending Engineer & Ors.

P. Jayappan versus S.K. Perumal, First Income-Tax Officer, Tuticorin

Mohammad Idris and Anr. versus Rustam Jahangir Babuji and Others.

Deepak Pahwa etc. versus Lt. Governer of Delhi and Ors.