Bhuneshwar Jain vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

Application Under Provision of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 90 Under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 for Reviewing the Order Dated 13.08.2012 Passed by this hon''ble Court in WPS No. 3114/2012 (Bhuneshwar Jain V. State of C.G. & OTHERS).

(BY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER)

The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 13.08.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3114 of 2012 (Bhuneshwar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by this Court, wherein the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid order on the ground that the intention of the petitioner was to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition, however, due to mistake, in the order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner intended to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that he wants to make a representation to the respondent authorities.

On perusal of the order dated 13.08.2012, it is apparent that the same was passed on a specific request made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Now, learned counsel submits that the intention of the petitioner was to file a fresh petition after withdrawing the said petition. The counsel for the petitioner neither expressed nor submitted before this Court that he intended to file a fresh petition, at the time of hearing. The order sought to be reviewed, was passed in the open court without any objection of the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner is expected to be fair and honest, after having made oral request for passing the order. This act amounts to unfair practice and blowing hot and cold together at the writ petition stage and thereafter, in the review petition, which must be deprecated. Thus, there is no reason to amend or modify the order dated 13.08.2012.

The review petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has not produced any ground for review.

It appears that the petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. As a result and in view of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed.