Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SOW CHANDRA KANTA AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHEIK HABIB
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1975
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION:
1975 AIR 1500 1975 SCC (4) 457
CITATOR INFO :
R 1980 SC 674 (8)
E 1980 SC 808 (8)
F 1980 SC2041 (12)
RF 1983 SC1125 (7)
RF 1990 SC 538 (5)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 137 and Supreme Court
Rules, 1966, Order XL--Review of an order refusing special
leave--Review proceeding, if amounts to re-hearing.
HEADNOTE:
Once an order refusing special leave has been passed by this
Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and cannot be lightly
entertained. Review proceeding does not amount to a re-
hearing. A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring
omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in
earlier by judicial fallibility. Even if the order refusing
special leave was capable of a different course, review of
the earlier order is not permissible because such an order
has the normal feature of finality. [933 F-G; 934 B]
Observation : It is neither fairness to the Court which
decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost what
with a huge back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for
disposal, for counsel ’to issue easy certificates for
entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle
which has been fought and lost. [933 H]
JUDGMENT:
REVIEW JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 62A of 1974.
Petition for review of this Court’s Order dated the 18th
January, 1974 in Spl. Leave Petition No. 2788 of 1973.
C. K. Daphtary, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia, for the
petitioner.
S. V. Tambwaker, for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J. Mr. Daphtary, learned counsel for the
petitioners, has argued at length all the points which were
urged at the earlier stage when we refused special leave
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
thus making out that a review proceeding virtually amounts
to re-hearing. May be, we were not right in refusing
special leave in the first round; but, once an order has
been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject
to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly entertained.
A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant
resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or
patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by
judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different
counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over
ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of
inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very
strict need for compliance with these factors is the
rationale behind the insistence of counsel’s certificate
which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. It
is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness
of the precious public time lost what with a huge back-log
of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to
issue easy certificates for entertainment of review and
fight over again the same battle which has been fought and
lost. The Bench
934
and the Bar, we are sure, are jointly concerned in the
conservation of judicial time for maximum use. We regret to
say that this case is typical of the unfortunate but
frequent phenomenon of repeat performance with the review
label as passport. Nothing which we did not hear then has
been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier
put forward. May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed,
our order refusing special leave was capable of a different
course. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review
of an earlier order which has the normal feature of
finality.
We dismiss the petition unhesitatingly, but with these
observations, hopefully.
V.M.K. Review petition dismissed.
935