Review petition challenging a judgment dismissing a writ petition over alleged lack of evidence for solemnization of second marriage dismissed as review is not an appeal.
Review petition dismissed.
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.
REV.PET. NO.33/2017
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H. Deb, Asstt. S.G. 08.11.2017.
Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Deb, the learned Asstt. S.G. appearing for the Union of India and others.
This review petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.08.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.76 of 2013 dismissing the writ petition.
The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no sufficient evidence of solemnization of second marriage and the impugned judgment on the assumption that there was second marriage is untenable in law and the same requires to be considered by this Court.
In para-13 of the impugned judgment, this Court has observed that when a person himself admitted the offence, then even if no defence assistance had been given to him that would be of no consequence because this was a finding which had been arrived at on the basis of plea of guilt.
This Court had taken the view that the petitioner had pleaded guilty to the charge. If that is the case, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the finding arrived at by this Court earlier. Review is not an appeal in disguise. In the absence of any ground to show that there is an error apparent on the face of record or there is discovery of any important evidence which could not be procured at the time of the trial, no review can be entertained. This is not a case of error apparent on the face of the record.
Resultantly, this review petition has no legs to stand on and is, accordingly, dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Pulak
REV.PET. NO.33/2017
Page 1 of 1
Review Petitioner
Union of India
T. Vaiphei
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
