Shantilal Manganlal & ANR Vs.
Chunnilal Ranchoddas & Ors  INSC 127 (24 July 1984)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) MADON, D.P.
CITATION: 1984 AIR 1578 1985 SCR (1) 205 1984
SCC (4) 236 1984 SCALE (2)61
Petition for Special Leave and Petition for
Review-If the petition filed without giving the grounds of appeal they will be
dismissed as frivolous and an abuse of the process of law-Order XVI and XL of
Supreme Court Rules 1966-Duty of advocate to court in filing petitions.
An application for review against the order
of dismissal of the Special Leave Petition dated 9.12.83 was filled without
disclosing any ground for review. It was averred that the petition was being
filed so as to be within the limitation prescribed under Order XL of the
Supreme Court Rules and that further grounds would be filed if advised.
However, nothing was done though more than six months had elapsed by the date
Dismissing the petition, expressing its deep
dissatisfaction and anguish with the indiscriminate manner in which petitions
for Special Leave and petitions for Review were being filed in the Supreme
HELD: The application for review was nothing
short of an abuse of the process of the court, a waste of the time of the Court
and was entirely frivolous.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition
No. 249 of 1984.
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13618 of
1983 CHAMBER MATTER-By Circulation The order of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This application for Review is nothing 206 short of an
abuse of the process of the Court and waste of the time of this Court, time
which has now become so dear and precious because of the daily mounting
arrears. No ground for seeking a review is mentioned or even hinted at in the
petition. In the first paragraph of the petition it is stated "This is an
application for Review of the order dated 9.12.83, whereby this Hon'ble Court
was pleased to dismiss the above Special Leave to Appeal (Civil). The said
order discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be clear
from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in the petition for
Special Leave to Appeal.
It is submitted that since the order is
unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to review the order". In the second paragraph we are
told that no detailed grounds have been taken (though in point of fact not a
single ground is even mentioned) as limitation is about to expire and "If
so advised, further set of grounds would be submitted for the consideration of
the Hon'ble Court" The petition was filed on 9.1.1984 and nothing has been
done though more than six months have passed since then. The offer to file
detailed grounds remains an unredeemed promise. Possibly he was advised to file
no further grounds as there was none to be submitted. Good words were not to be
thrown away after bad.
To that extent, we may consider ourselves
spared. We must however express our deep dissatisfaction and anguish with the
indiscriminate manner in which petitions for special leave and petitions for
review are being filed. The present application is entirely frivolous and is
S. R. Petition dismissed.