9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought permission to withdraw the Review Petition No. 31/2023 and the order of withdrawal reads as under: "Shri S. Parthasarathi, learned advocate for petitioner submits that the petitioner has decided not to pursue the review petition and prayed to withdraw the same. A memo of even date is filed to the said effect. 2. Memo be kept in record. Leave granted. Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn." 3. It is submitted that the reason as to why the aforesaid Review Petition was withdrawn was in order to pursue the Special Leave Petition Nos.6925-6928/2023 before this Court. By order dated 17.04.2023, this Court passed the following order in the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court. 8. We find that that the said vacillation of the petitioner vis-a-vis the filing of the initial Review Petition and thereafter withdrawing the same and pursuing the Special Leave Petitions and on its dismissal once again filing another Review Petition is not in accordance with the policy of attaining finality in litigation. Moreover, the non-seeking of liberty by the petitioner at the initial stage or before this Court is fatal to the case of the petitioner. 9. Further, in the instant case, when the first Review Petition was withdrawn owing to the filing of the Special Leave Petitions before this Court, no liberty was sought to file a Review Petition once again. This would imply that the petitioner had aborted hearing of the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. In Khoday India Limited, there was no Review Petition filed initially and after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, another Review Petition being filed as in the instant case. 11. On the other hand, this case is similar to Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm vs. K. Santhakumaran, (1998) 7 SCC 386 ("Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm"), wherein Special leave petitions preferred were dismissed by this Court and thereafter, Review Petitions were filed and entertained by the High Court. Therefore, strong strictures were passed by this Court against vis-à-vis the order of the High Court. 12. We also place reliance on an order of this Court in the case of Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm, wherein paragraph '4' reads as under: "4. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the High Court after the dismissal of the SLPs by this Court. The appeals deserve to succeed on that short ground. The appeals are, consequently, allowed and the impugned order dated 7-4-1994 passed in the review petitions is hereby set aside. The respondents shall pay Rs 10,000 as costs." 13. In this context, we advert to the following three maxims: "(i) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (No man should be vexed twice for the same cause); (ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (It is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation); and (iii) Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (A judicial decision must be accepted as correct). These maxims would indicate that there must be an end t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
