AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—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.
I. A. No. 1, this is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. The review petition has been filed after 134 days of the limitation period. The grounds made in the application for condonation of delay is satisfactory and appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay in filing review petition is condoned.
The review Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition) seeks review of the order dated 22-2-2010 passed in W.P. (L) No. 3370/2007 on the ground firstly that none could appears on behalf of the review Petitioner on the date of hearing of the writ petition. Secondly, while granting back wages the Court ought to have considered the fact that the writ Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 has not attempted to seek reinstatement pursuant to the orders passed by the Court below.
On perusal of the records, it is found that in the writ petition, notice was issued on 28-6-2007, the same was served on the review Petitioner on 25-7-2007, the matter was thereafter listed on 19-2-2008, 10-7-2008, 3-9-2008, 28-1-2010 and on 19-2-2010, the matter was heard finally and reserved for orders. Thus, the grievance of the Petitioner that he could not appear is on account of non-response of the review Petitioner (Respondent No. 1 in the writ petition), despite service of notice and it is made clear that the Petitioner/ Respondent No. 1 has not taken any steps for about 2 1/2 years for coming to the Court and participating in the hearing. The other grounds that the Petitioner has not attempted to get him reinstated was not in question in the writ petition.
Challenge in the petition was only to the extent of grant of back wages. This Court having heard the submission of the Petitioner, perusal of the pleadings and records and keeping in view the legal position of the case, decided the matter on merit. This review petition appears to be an attempt on the part of the review Petitioner/Respondent No. 1 to reargue the whole matter after having deliberately chosen not to appear before the Court, when the writ petition was pending for about 2 1/2 years. The review Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy looking into his conduct in not appearing before the Court, despite receipt of notice of this Court for about 21/2 years.
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 applicants have not produced any ground for review.
It appears that the applicant by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits 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 same is not sustainable in law. [See: Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 85 , The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and Others, , and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 651.]
As a result and in view of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed.