AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.S. Kesar, FC.
The Review Application No. 15/2003 in ROR No. 674 of 2001 has been filed under Order47, Rule1, read with Section82 of the Punjab
Tenancy Act, for review of the order dated 30.9.2002 passed by the then Financial Commissioner, Cooperation.
The second Review Application No. 50 of 2003 in ROR No. 33 of 2003 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 15 of the Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 for review of the order dated 7.4.2003 passed by the then Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab.
A common law point has been raised in both the Review Applications. Therefore, the same are disposed of by this common order.
Before the arguments in these cases on merits, the counsels for the respondents have raised a legal objection that as held by the Hon''ble
Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 1005, the Review Application can be filed only by the counsel who had argued the main petition. In the present
review applications, the review applications are being filed by a different counsel from the one who argued the main case and hence, are not legally
maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondents have further cited 1997(2) PLJ 418, wherein Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has
also held that a review application moved by a counsel other than the one who argued the case on merits, should not be entertained.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, while replying, has argued that in the Supreme Court, the facts of the case were quite different. There it
was a second review petition and the Hon''ble apex court has held that the tendency to file repeated review applications for seeking clarification by
a counsel different from the one who argued the case, is to be deprecated. In the present cases, the order sought to be reviewed is contrary to the
facts and law and hence, the above rulings will not be applicable.
After going through the legal position, I find that the judgment of our own High Court cited as 1997(2) PLJ 418 is more specific and there is no
reason, as to why the principle laid down in this judgment should not followed in the present review applications. Without going through the merits
of the review applications, this court comes to the conclusion that the review applications filed are not maintainable as per legal position explained
above. The same are, accordingly, dismissed. Copy of this order be placed on each of the files.
Petitions dismissed.