Sow Chandra Kanta & ANR Vs. Sheik
Habib [1975] INSC 68 (13 March 1975)
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION: 1975 AIR 1500 1975 SCC (4) 457
CITATOR INFO :
R 1980 SC 674 (8) E 1980 SC 808 (8) F 1980
SC2041 (12) RF 1983 SC1125 (7) RF 1990 SC 538 (5)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 137 and
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL--Review of an order refusing special
leave--Review proceeding, if amounts to re-hearing.
HEADNOTE:
Once an order refusing special leave has been
passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and cannot be lightly entertained. Review proceeding
does not amount to a re- hearing. A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent
mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Even
if the order refusing special leave was capable of a different course, review
of the earlier order is not permissible because such an order has the normal
feature of finality. [933 F-G; 934 B] Observation : It is neither fairness to
the Court which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what
with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel
'to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and fight over again
the same battle which has been fought and lost. [933 H]
REVIEW JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 62A
of 1974.
Petition for review of this Court's Order
dated the 18th January, 1974 in Spl. Leave Petition No. 2788 of 1973.
C. K. Daphtary, S. K. Dholakia and R. C.
Bhatia, for the petitioner.
S. V. Tambwaker, for the respondents The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Mr. Daphtary, learned
counsel for the petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were
urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave thus making out that a
review proceeding virtually amounts to re-hearing. May be, we were not right in
refusing special leave in the first round; but, once an order has been passed
by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and
cannot be lightly entertained.
A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent
mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A
mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a
second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of
inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for
compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of
counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step.
It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness of the precious
public time lost what with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for
disposal, for counsel to issue easy certificates for entertainment of review
and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. The Bench
934 and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the conservation of
judicial time for maximum use. We regret to say that this case is typical of
the unfortunate but frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review
label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has been heard now,
except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward. May be, as counsel
now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a
different course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an
earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.
We dismiss the petition unhesitatingly, but
with these observations, hopefully.
V.M.K. Review petition dismissed.
Back
