The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Appeal No. 478 of 2012 dismissed the appeal against the single judge's order rejecting a review petition. The court held that rejection of a review application is not appealable under CPC and found no merit in the current appeal.
No costs awarded.
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.
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.478 OF 2012
DATED:5.10.2012
Between: K. Satyanarayana Rao … Appellant And The Superintending Engineer Panchayat Raj Circle Karimnagar District and others … Respondents
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.478 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.9.6.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.3493 of 2006.
The appellant – petitioner filed the writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in recovering seigniorage charges for ordinary earth from out of the bills payable for executing the contract works covered under the Agreement No.2/2004-2005, dt.31.1.2005 executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner, despite the orders passed by the Government in Memo NO.1885/SRSB.I(2)/200304, dt.8.2.2003 and No.4907/E(2)2004-1, dt.15.9.2005, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions.
It appears that earlier on the same cause of action, W.P. Nos.8490, 15459, 15978, 22285 and 22286 of 2005 were dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, on 22.7.2008 as under:
“…At the hearing, Sri Ch. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though in pursuance of the interim orders, the respondents did not deduct the seigniorage charges from the current pending bills, subsequently, they deducted the disputed seigniorage charges from the subsequent bills. He, therefore, stated that the lis raised in these writ petitions does not survive for consideration.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submitted that if the enhanced seigniorage charges, which are questioned in the writ petitions, have not been recovered, the respondents may be given liberty to recover the same from the final bills or if the bills have already been paid, through any other legal process.
Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the
respondents to recover the disputed seigniorage charges in the event they have already not been recovered.”
Subsequent thereto, another batch of writ petitions, being W.P. Nos.2590, 2702, 3493, 4437, 4438, 4439, 4441, 5442, 5451, 5959, 6079, 6220, 6284 and 6355 of 2006 were filed on the same cause of action. By order dt.9.6.2010, the Hon’ble Single Judge, recorded the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the respondents therein, that the issue involved in the writ petitions was squarely covered by the common order dt.22.7.2008 in W.P. No.8490 of 2005 an batch, whereunder similar writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the respondents to recover the disputed seigniorage charges in the event they have already not been recovered, and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions as infructuous in terms of the common order dt.22.7.2008 in W.P. No.8490 of 2005 and batch.
Subsequently, the petitioner in W.P. Nos.3493 and 5442 of 2006 filed review W.P.M.P. Nos.33503 and 33509 of 2010 in the writ petitions respectively. The Hon’ble Single Judge observing that there are no grounds to review the order dt.9.6.2010 passed in the writ petitions, dismissed the review petitions by an order dt.3.12.2010. The present appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No.3493 of 2006.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
After dismissal of the review petition by the Hon’ble Single Judge, the writ petitioner filed this writ appeal questioning the order dt.9.6.2010 passed in writ petition. In our view, if a review petition is dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, the said order of dismissal is not appelable under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Furthermore, the Court will only entertain such review petition on any of the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which are as follows:
Order 47 Rule 1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved –
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) … … …”.
From the above, it is clear that the Court can entertain such review petition if there is a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time of hearing on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. However, if the Court finds that the application for review should be allowed, it can allow such application after recording the reasons. It has been specifically stated in Order 47 Rule 7 of the CPC that the order of rejection of an application is not appealable. In view of that, we do not find that there is any ground in the matter which can come within the four corners of the said grounds of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Hence, we do not find that there is any reason to entertain this appeal.
The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 5.10.2012
bnr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of rejection of a review petition by the Single Judge is appealable under Order 47 Rule 7 of the CPC.
Whether the second writ appeal raised any grounds falling within the permissible grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Satyanarayana Rao
Superintending Engineer Panchayat Raj Circle Karimnagar District and others
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
