2017 (3) TMI 1687 - SC - Indian Laws

Delay in disposal of the application for review which was kept pending for a span of four years. Held that - An application for review, regard being had to its limited scope, has to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible - Though we do not intend to fix any time limit, it has to be the duty of the Registry of every High Court to place the matter before the concerned Judge/Bench so that the review application can be dealt with in quite promptitude. If a notice is required to be issued to the opposite party in the application for review, a specific date can be given on which day the matter can be dealt with in accordance with law. A reasonable period can be spent for disposal of the review, but definitely not four years. We request the High Courts not to keep the applications for review pending as that is likely to delay the matter in every court and also embolden the likes of the Petitioner to take a stand intelligently depicting the same in the application for condonation of delay. SLP dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 9th March, 2012, passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.S.A. No. 345 of 2012 and the order dated 26th October, 2016, passed in Review Petition No. 886 of 2012.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the delay in the disposal of a review petition in this case. The appellant had filed a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court challenging a previous judgment and decree. The review petition filed by the appellant was barred by limitation and was not entertained on merits. The Court emphasized that the grounds for review specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are specific and well-settled. The Court highlighted that a review is not an appeal in disguise but is limited to correcting patent errors.

The Court referred to previous judgments to emphasize that an error for review must be self-evident and not require a process of reasoning to detect. The Court stressed that the purpose of a review petition is limited and cannot be allowed to become an appeal in disguise. The nature, scope, and limits of the power of review were clearly outlined based on legal precedents.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the delay in disposing of the review application, which was pending for almost four years. The Court stated that the application for review, given its limited scope, should be dealt with expeditiously. The Court highlighted the duty of the Registry of every High Court to promptly place review matters before the concerned Judge/Bench. The Court criticized the delay of 1700 days in preferring the special leave petition due to the review process and stressed that such delays are unacceptable.

The Supreme Court urged High Courts to dispose of review applications promptly to avoid delays in the legal process. The Court emphasized the obligation of litigants and their counsel to file reviews without defects and to address any issues promptly. The Court warned against using tactics to delay litigation and highlighted the importance of diligence from both litigants and court registries. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of each High Court for necessary action.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on the grounds of delay and lack of merits. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of timely review processes and the need to avoid unnecessary delays in legal proceedings.