AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—This review petition has been filed seeking to review the order dated 13.9.2012, wherein the impugned order passed by the Fast Track Court was set aside. There is a delay of 230 days in filing the review petition. In support of the application, it is contended that the petitioners had no knowledge about their appearance before the Court and were unable to handover the case to their counsel and therefore there is delay in filing the review petition.
In order to consider the reasons in the affidavit seeking condonation of delay, it was necessary to determine whether there was any merit in this petition. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioners addressed arguments on the merits of the petition. He contends that he has a very good case on merits and that the order under review requires to be re-called; that due to unfortunate circumstances, the writ petition was allowed and that if the review petition is allowed, no harm would be caused to the other side. He therefore pleads that the petition be allowed.
On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that not even a single ground has been urged in order to show that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. What is being contended is purely and simply on the merits of the writ petition. The provision of Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 are clear. It is only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record that an order under review could be entertained. In the guise of filing a review petition, the main petition could not be considered once again. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition.
In support of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment reported in State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another, in the case of ''State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr.'' with reference to para 14. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, by exercising its powers under the Constitution of India in order to do substantial justice, held that there was sufficient cause seeking condonation of delay. However, herein, the petitioner would have to make out a case under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The question of this Court exercising the powers of the Hon''ble Supreme" Court does not arise. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to this case. The second judgment relied upon is reported in Sri. Lakshmana Dasappa Since lunatic represented by his Next friend G. Ganesh Vs. Sri. M. Manju, in the case of ''Lakshmana v. M. Manju'' to contend that the delay in filing the review petition was condoned and the review petition was allowed by re-calling the order under review. In the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out the question of law, if any, that was decided therein. Infact, the decision therein was purely on the facts of the case. Under the circumstances, since no law has been laid down, the said judgment is also of no avail to the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have failed to make out a prima facie case in so far as the merits of the petition is concerned. In view of the same, issuing notice on the application for delay would be a futile exercise. Consequently, the petition as well as the applications IA. 1/13 and 2/13 are dismissed.