Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & Ors  Insc 819 (17 November 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of SLP (C) No. 26765 of 2005) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing
the application for review filed in respect of the order in CWP No.17615 of
2001 which was dismissed on 12.8.2005. The said writ petition was dismissed on
the ground that the writ petitioner was absent for about three years. The High
Court found the writ petitioner to be a habitual absentee and, therefore, felt
that he did not deserve any relief in the quantum of punishment. It is to be
noted that while issuing notice on 6.11.2001 the following order had been
passed by the High Court:
counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments stated that the petitioner
has put in ten years of service and he has been deprived of the retiral
benefits in view of the impugned order. He confines the prayer in the writ
petition only to the quantum of punishment." Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the High Court is not right in holding that the review
petition was not entertainable in view of the materials which were placed for
consideration. Those materials clearly show that the High Court did not take
note of the correct factual position while dismissing the writ petition.
counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has rightly held that
the review petition was not maintainable.
in this appeal is only to the order passed in the review application. Such an
appeal is not maintainable.
Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput [(1994) 2 SCC 753] it was observed
appeal is obviously incompetent. It is against an order of a Division Bench of
the High Court rejecting the application for review of a judgment and decree
passed by a learned Single Judge, who seems to have retired in the meantime. It
is not against the basic judgment. Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an appeal
against the order of the court rejecting the review. On this basis, we reject
cost. I.A. No.1/93 (Application for substitution).
orders are necessary in view of the rejection of the appeal." The position
has been re-iterated in Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors. [(2004)
13 SCC 675] and M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. [(2004)
13 SCC 677].
stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the basic order dated
20.8.2004 passed by the High Court has been challenged by filing a special
leave petition on 9.10.2006.
dismissal of this present appeal shall not stand on the way of consideration of
the Special Leave Petition stated to have been filed on 9.10.2006. The same
shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Pages: 1 2