Issue
Facts
Decision
Corporation Of Madras
v.
P.g. Arunachalam
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Revision Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 9117 Of 1973 | 19-10-1973
( 1 ) THE petitioner prays for review of the judgment of this court made in W. P. 230 of 1971, dated 28-8-1973.
( 2 ) THE ground on which the petitioner seeks to get the order in question reviewed is set out here below. The petitioner further submits that due to inadvertence, the respondent in the writ petition was not able to produce the abovementioned unreported decision on the date of hearing of the writ petition. The respondent did not urge anything against any procedural aspect of the enquiry. Hence if the decision has been placed before this Honourable court, the writ petition should have been dismissed. " Admittedly, the judgment of the Division Bench (Veeraswami, C. J. and Gokulakrishnan j.) in W. A. 188 of 1967 (Mad) (L. Sivanarayanalal v. Corpn. of Madras, represented by its Commissioner and another) has not been brought to my notice. The petitioner pleaded inadvertence for his not producing the judgment of the Division Bench. I am afraid, under Order 47, Rule 1 inadvertence is not a ground. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered as early as 15-7-1969, and it is significant to notice that the petitioner was the first respondent in that case. The respondent in W. P. 230 of 1971 (the review petitioner) was possessed of the knowledge of the existence of the judgment of the Division Bench since 1969. The plea of inadvertence is not a ground within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 for reviewing the order of this court, Petition dismissed.
( 3 ) PETITION dismissed.
( 2 ) THE ground on which the petitioner seeks to get the order in question reviewed is set out here below. The petitioner further submits that due to inadvertence, the respondent in the writ petition was not able to produce the abovementioned unreported decision on the date of hearing of the writ petition. The respondent did not urge anything against any procedural aspect of the enquiry. Hence if the decision has been placed before this Honourable court, the writ petition should have been dismissed. " Admittedly, the judgment of the Division Bench (Veeraswami, C. J. and Gokulakrishnan j.) in W. A. 188 of 1967 (Mad) (L. Sivanarayanalal v. Corpn. of Madras, represented by its Commissioner and another) has not been brought to my notice. The petitioner pleaded inadvertence for his not producing the judgment of the Division Bench. I am afraid, under Order 47, Rule 1 inadvertence is not a ground. The judgment of the Division Bench was delivered as early as 15-7-1969, and it is significant to notice that the petitioner was the first respondent in that case. The respondent in W. P. 230 of 1971 (the review petitioner) was possessed of the knowledge of the existence of the judgment of the Division Bench since 1969. The plea of inadvertence is not a ground within the meaning of Order 47, Rule 1 for reviewing the order of this court, Petition dismissed.
( 3 ) PETITION dismissed.
Advocates List
For the Respondents Stanislas for R. Thillai Villalan, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. MUDALIYAR
Eq Citation
(1974) 2 MLJ 43
AIR 1974 MAD 288
LQ/MadHC/1973/334
HeadNote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 47 R. 1 — Grounds for review — "Inadvertence" — Held, not a ground for review — Practice and Procedure — Review — Grounds
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
