Electricity Board & Anr Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr  INSC 1651 (20
O R D
a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the
profession is croppingup. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama
for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After
the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition
for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar,
has now been engaged to file the present application styled as
"application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order
is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is
dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the
record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither
appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to not that court spends
valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an
attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become,
in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine;
too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on
record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar
which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession.
In Review Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, a Bench of three Judges to
which one of us, K. Ramaswamy,J., was a member, has held as under:
record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was heard and decided on
merits. The Review Petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was
neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the
time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in
the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He
did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the
profession to permit such practice.
part, he has not obtained " No Objection Certificate" from the
Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had
informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No Objection
Certificate" would be the basis for him to come on record.
the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the
"No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled
him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits,
It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits.
these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition".
the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should
be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of
changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with
heavy had for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy
application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- as it is an abuse
of the process of court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be
paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from
today. If the amount is not paid, it should be recovered treating this
direction as decree of the Court by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Supreme Court Legal