Roshan Lal Kuthiala vs Sansar Chand Banta

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This review petition, although described as one in S.C.A. No. 6 of 1973, is really a review petition in Civil Review No. 1 of 1970.

The Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement between the parties and for possession of the major portion of a building as well as for mesne profits. The trial court decreed the suit with costs. In execution proceedings the Respondent obtained possession of the building. The Petitioner then applied under Order 47 and Sections 144 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was dismissed by the executing court. A first appeal against that order was dismissed by Rangarajan J. On August 22, 1969 and a Letters Patent Appeal preferred thereafter was dismissed by a Division Bench consisting of Prakash Narain and P.S. Safeer JJ. on November 17, 1969. Against the order of the Division Bench the Petitioner applied for review. This Bench heard the review application and finding it of no substance rejected it on August 21, 1972. By the present petition a review is sought of the order dismissing the review petition. The Petitioner, who appears in person, contends that the order dated August 21, 1972, dismissing the review petition is without jurisdiction inasmuch as a Full Bench of the Court should have been constituted to hear and dispose of the said review petition. Reliance is placed on Rule 5 of Chapter III-B of Volume V of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab. High Court. Those rules are in force in this Court. The said Rule 5 provides:

Hearing of review applications. In cases not provided for by Order XLVI, Rule 5, an application for a review of a decree or order shall be heard (a) if the decree or order review of which is applied for, was passed by a Judge, sitting alone, by a Bench of two or more Judges, (b) if the said decree or order was passed by a Bench of two or more Judges, by a Behch consisting of at least as many Judges as the Bench review of whose decree or order is applied for.

The rule provides that in cases not covered by Order 46 Rule 5 (Order 47 Rule 5 was apparently intended), where the decree or order of which the review is sought was passed by a Judge sitting alone the review application shall be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, and where the said decree or order was passed by a Bench of two or more Judges the application for review must be heard by "a Bench consisting of at least as many Judges as the Bench'''' which passed the decree or order of which review is sought. The Letters Patent Appeal was heard and decided by a Bench of two Judges. Consequently, a Bench of at least two Judges was competent to hear and dispose of the review application. It was not necessary that a Bench of three or more Judges should have been constituted for that purpose. The contention of the Petitioner that a Bench of two Judges could not hear and dispose of the review petition is erroneous and must be rejected. The Petitioner, when are going this review petition, has urged that the judgment and order passed by Rangarajan J. disposing of the first appeal and thereafter the judgment and order of the Division Bench disposing of the Letters Patent appeal are contrary to law and invalid. So far as that contention is concerned, it is a matter, in our opinion, for which recourse must be had by the Petitioner to Section 30(3) of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act which provides that the jurisdiction to entertain, hear or dispose of an application for review seeking relief in respect of an order passed by the High Court of Delhi before January 25, 1971 vests in the High Court of Delhi alone and not in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at all. It is only when such proceeding is taken before the High Court of Delhi and it appears to the Chief Justice of that High Court that the proceeding ought to be transferred to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and he makes an order to that effect that the proceeding stands transferred to this Court. That stage has not been reached.

The Petitioner has requested that this review petition should be set down for hearing before a Full Bench. We see no justification for doing so.

The review petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to costs.

Chet Ram Thakur, J.

I agree.