2005 (3) TMI 720 - HC - Indian Laws

Effort by placing same evidence, same document and same averments for taking different view than taken at earlier stage, can never be the scope of review petition otherwise, there may not be any end of the matter as the loosing party will always try to get review petition filed and that too, may be some more eminent advocate according to his expectations for the purpose of vehement re arguments in the matter in the hope of getting some changed opinion favouring him.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and propriety of the auction sale of properties.
2. Maintainability of review petition after dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Apex Court.
3. Legitimacy of a new counsel filing and arguing the review petition.
4. Request for extension of time to vacate the properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Propriety of the Auction Sale of Properties:
The primary issue in the writ petition was the validity and propriety of the auction sale of three houses situated in Civil Lines, Kanpur, auctioned for small dues of the sales tax department for a total amount of Rs.1,61,000/-. After extensive arguments, the writ petition was allowed, the auction proceedings were quashed, and the auction purchaser was directed to hand over possession of the properties within six months. The bid amount along with interest was to be returned to the auction purchaser within six weeks. This judgment was challenged by the respondent-auction purchaser through an SLP, which was dismissed by the Apex Court.

2. Maintainability of Review Petition After Dismissal of SLP:
The review petition was filed after the dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court. The court referred to the decision in *Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala* (2000) 6 SCC 360, which clarified that the dismissal of an SLP does not take away the jurisdiction of the court to review its own order if grounds for review exist. The court noted that the review petition could be entertained if it fell within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which allows for review on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

3. Legitimacy of a New Counsel Filing and Arguing the Review Petition:
The court examined whether a new counsel, who was not involved in the original proceedings, could file and argue the review petition. Referring to *Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs. N. Raju Reddiar* JT 1997 (1) SC 486, it was determined that a new counsel could not file a review petition without obtaining a "No Objection Certificate" from the previous counsel. The court emphasized that a new counsel would not have knowledge of the arguments and proceedings from the original hearing, making it improper for them to file and argue the review petition.

4. Request for Extension of Time to Vacate the Properties:
The applicants also sought an extension of six months to vacate the properties. The court noted that six months had already been granted initially, which was ample time for the applicants to arrange for relocation. The court observed that the applicants did not provide any substantial reason or evidence of efforts made to find an alternative accommodation. Consequently, the request for an extension was denied.

Conclusion:
Both applications filed by the applicants were rejected. The review petition was dismissed on the grounds that it did not meet the criteria under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and the request for an extension of time to vacate the properties was denied due to lack of sufficient reasons. The court upheld its original judgment, emphasizing the finality of its decision and the impropriety of re-arguing the case through a review petition filed by a new counsel.