AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    Dnayandeo Sabaji Naik & Anr. Petitioners v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors. S

    Mridula Bhatkar, J.:— This Review Petition is filed challenging the order dated 22 November, 2013 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1051 of 2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the review is preferred on two grounds, i.e., firstly, no reasoning is given by this Court on 22 November, 2013 and secondly, the case of the petitioners stand on good merits. The learned counsel also prays for extension of time alternatively, as the health of the petitioner is not good. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:

    (1) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 456.

    (2) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota v. Shukla & Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785.

    (3) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Phal v. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 258.

    2. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed this Review Petition.

    3. The Review Petition cannot fall within the parameter of Review Petition under section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is to be noted that a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioners in 1973 and the landlord filed a suit for possession in 1984. On query made by the Court whether similar to undertaking given in this case at the time of passing order were also given in the cases which are relied by him or not, the learned counsel for the petitioners informs that no such undertaking is given in either of these three rulings. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a consistent view that even if the Appeal is summarily dismissed, reasoned order is to be passed.

    4. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on this Court. However, considering the facts and circumstances under which the order is passed is totally different and nowhere it is a case fitting under review. Hence, the Review Petition is rejected.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Dnayandeo Sabaji Naik & Anr. Petitioners v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & Ors. S
    (Jun 16, 2015)