AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
Examined the review petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.26 of 2021. Also heard Mr. N. B. Khatiwada, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Navtara Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Souri Ghosal along with Mr. Amresh Mandal, learned Counsel for the respondents.
On perusal of the application it seems the only justifiable grievance is the observation of this court regarding late Sonam Topden Bhutia in paragraph 13. It is the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since late Sonam Topden Bhutia was no longer alive the question of joining him as a party did not arise. A reading of the order in its entirety however, clears the doubt that this court was talking about the heirs of late Sonam Topden Bhutia in the said paragraph and that this court was fully aware that late Sonam Topden Bhutia was no longer alive. In such view of the matter question of joining late Sonam Topden Bhutia as a party would not arise. In any case the learned counsel for the respondents submits that subsequently an application was filed by the petitioner under Order I, Rule 10 (4) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for amendment of plaint which was partially allowed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, East Sikkim at Gangtok by order dated 21.03.2022. In view of the same the review petition in any case has become infructuous. Examined the application as well as the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge has partially allowed the application and Angela Penzum Bhutia and Elimith Lepcha have been arrayed in the pending proceedings. Thus, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this Review Petition.
A Division Bench of this Court in Janga Bahadur Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine Sikk 51 had held that the Court’s jurisdiction to review its own judgment is limited following the ratio laid by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. B. Valluvan & Ors.AIR 2007 SC 210. The Supreme Court had held that the power of review must be exercised within the limitations as provided under section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). None of the other grounds taken in the present review petition falls within the parameters of section 114 read with Order 47 of the CPC. The review petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending application for stay.