SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Shiv Charan Singh
Vs
State of Punjab and Others
Appeal (Civil) 5023 of 2006 (Arising Out of Slp (C) No. 26765 of 2005)
(Arijit Pasayat and L. S. Panta, JJ)
17.11.2006
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application for review filed in
respect of the order in CWP No.17615 of 2001 which was dismissed on 12.8.2005.
The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner was
absent for about three years. The High Court found the writ petitioner to be a
habitual absentee and, therefore, felt that he did not deserve any relief in
the quantum of punishment. It is to be noted that while issuing notice on
6.11.2001 the following order had been passed by the High Court:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments stated
that the petitioner has put in ten years of service and he has been deprived of
the retiral benefits in view of the impugned order. He confines the prayer in
the writ petition only to the quantum of punishment."
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court is not right in
holding that the review petition was not entertainable in view of the materials
which were placed for consideration. Those materials clearly show that the High
Court did not take note of the correct factual position while dismissing the
writ petition.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has rightly
held that the review petition was not maintainable.
Challenge in this appeal is only to the order passed in the review application.
Such an appeal is not maintainable.
In Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput 0 it was observed as follows:
"The appeal is obviously incompetent. It is against an order of a
Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the application for review of a
judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge, who seems to have retired
in the meantime. It is not against the basic judgment. Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC
bars an appeal against the order of the court rejecting the review. On this
basis, we reject the appeal. No cost.
I.A. No.1/93 (Application for substitution).
No orders are necessary in view of the rejection of the appeal."
The position has been re-iterated in Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M.
Lata and Ors. 2004 (13) SCC 675 and M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. 2004 (13) SCC 677.
It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the basic order dated
20.8.2004 passed by the High Court has been challenged by filing a special
leave petition on 9.10.2006. However, dismissal of this present appeal shall
not stand on the way of consideration of the Special Leave Petition stated to
have been filed on 9.10.2006. The same shall be dealt with in accordance with
law.
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.