AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyoti Mulimani, J
Sri.Kumaraswamy.A.B., learned counsel for the review petitioners has appeared in person.
The captioned Review Petition is listed today for orders regarding non-compliance of office objections. It is heard finally.
The Review Petition is filed to review the order passed by this Court on 26th March, 2021 in M.F.A. No.3567/2020.
Learned counsel Sri.Kumaraswamy.A.B., submits that the review petitioners are the appellants in the appeal. Counsel further submits there is a delay of 630 days in filing the Review Petition. Accordingly, an application in I.A.No.01/2024 has been filed to condone the delay of 630 days in filing the Review Petition. Counsel therefore submits that he may be heard.
Heard, the submission made on behalf of the review petitioner.
As could be seen from the records, this Court on the 26th day of March, 2021 has disposed of the Miscellaneous First Appeal on the merits. The review petitioners were the appellants in the appeal, they have been duly represented by leaned Senior counsel Sri.Udaya Holla. After disposal of the appeal, Sri.Kumaraswamy.A.B., advocate has filed the captioned Review Petition.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has categorically held that, when a case is disposed of, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate who was not an advocate on record in the main case. It is salutary to note that Court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel.
In the present case also, the appellants were represented by learned Senior counsel Sri.Udaya Holla., and the appeal was heard extensively and disposed of. Strangely, an attempt is made by the review petitioners to file the Review Petition with the change of counsel belatedly. There is a delay of 630 days in filing the Review Petition. This Court is declined to condone the delay. I have no hesitation is saying and concluding that this is sheer abuse of the process of the Court and that too practice of changing advocates and filing a Review Petition should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of the administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.
I can say only this much that this is totally a abuse of the process of law and also precious public time is wasted. Hence, the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.