Dismissed

Miss Atiya Begum v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Feb 2025WA/1320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petitions sought reconsideration of a writ appeal dismissal on the basis of new material. The court held that review jurisdiction is limited by principles analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; counsel did not plead lack of knowledge or due diligence, so review was refused and interlocutory applications dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted; interlocutory review applications dismissed.

SL. NO	DATE	ORDER	OFFICE NOTE
07.	03.04.2025	HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J REVIEW I.A.No.2 of 2025 and I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.A.No.1318 of 2024 And I.A.No.2 of 2025 and REVIEW I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.A.No.1320 of 2024	Transferred to IO Folder before corrections.
		Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, learned counsel for the review petitioners/appellants. Heard on these interlocutory applications. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that he has filed some new material before this Court in review jurisdiction and submits that in view of these documents, the writ appellate Court should have interfered with the matter. In paragraph No.9 of I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.A.No.1318 of 2024, the review petitioner pleaded as under: “9. I respectfully submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench ought to have remanded back the WP No.38638/2018 to the learned single judge for reconsideration basing on the new material available in the appellate stage before this Hon’ble Division Bench even in giving an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant to file amendment petition before the learned single judge and to give an opportunity to both the parties and to decide the matter on merits within a

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

07.

03.04.2025

HACJ (SP,J) & RY,J

REVIEW I.A.No.2 of 2025 and I.A.No.3 of 2025
in W.A.No.1318 of 2024
And
I.A.No.2 of 2025 and REVIEW I.A.No.3 of 2025
in W.A.No.1320 of 2024

Transferred to
IO Folder
before
corrections.

Sri Sadu Rajeswara Reddy, learned
counsel for the review petitioners/appellants.
Heard
on
these
interlocutory
applications.
Learned
counsel
for
the
review
petitioners submits that he has filed some new
material
before
this
Court
in
review
jurisdiction and submits that in view of these
documents, the writ appellate Court should
have interfered with the matter.
In paragraph No.9 of I.A.No.3 of 2025 in
W.A.No.1318 of 2024, the review petitioner
pleaded as under:
“9. I respectfully submit that the Hon’ble
Division Bench ought to have remanded
back the WP No.38638/2018 to the
learned single judge for reconsideration
basing on the new material available in the
appellate stage before this Hon’ble Division
Bench even in giving an opportunity to the
petitioner/appellant to file amendment
petition before the learned single judge and
to give an opportunity to both the parties
and to decide the matter on merits within a

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

stipulated period of two months because
the matter was spending for long time.”

The scope of review jurisdiction is
limited. The principles analogous to Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC), are applicable even for exercising
review jurisdiction by the writ/writ appellate
Court.

On more than one occasion, a specific
query was raised by this Court whether the
new material on which the learned counsel for
the review petitioners is placing reliance can
be looked into in view of the language
employed in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. The
learned counsel for the review petitioners has
not pleaded that those documents were not
within his knowledge when the writ appeal
was heard. It is also not pleaded that despite
due diligence, the said documents could not be
traced and filed. Thus, minimum essential
ingredients for making out a case of review are
not made out.

Learned
counsel
for
the
review
petitioners submits that technically the order
of the writ Court may be correct, but the
matter may be remanded back to the writ
Court so that the review petitioners can amend
their petitions and contest the matter properly.

SL.
NO

DATE

ORDER

OFFICE
NOTE

In our opinion, this cann
to exercise the review jurisdic
apparent on the face of the r
pointed out.

ot be a ground
tion. No error
ecord could be

Accordingly,
these
applications are dismissed.

interlocutory

_________________
HACJ (SP,J)

_______________
RY,J

sa/vs

Miss Atiya Begum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Miss Atiya Begum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. 1DL Explosives Limited Vs Singareni Collieries Company Limited

M/s. Sri Krishna Enterprises Vs The Superintendent of Central Tax

Multiplex Association of India Vs Gorla Bharat Raj

Mr. Venkata Subbaraya Choudary Maddukuri, Vs Deputy Commissioner

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank of India) Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal No.1

M/s.Oasis Poly Profile Private Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner (St)