Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Review Order in Service Matter — Review Petition Found Incompetent. Dismissal of review application upheld as per CPC provisions.

  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from an appeal challenging the dismissal of a review application by the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerning a writ petition dismissed due to the petitioner's habitual absenteeism. The petitioner, Shiv Charan Singh, had filed a writ petition seeking relief regarding the quantum of punishment after being absent for three years. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 12.8.2005, finding the petitioner undeserving of relief. The petitioner subsequently filed a review application, which was also dismissed, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, noted that the appeal was against the dismissal of the review application and not the original judgment, making it incompetent under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court referenced previous judgments to support its position and clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not impede the consideration of a special leave petition filed later. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Review Application - Maintainability of Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 Rule 7 - The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an order rejecting a review petition is incompetent as per the provisions of the CPC. The court reiterated that the review petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court, and the appeal against such dismissal was not maintainable. Held that the appeal was dismissed without costs (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal against the dismissal of the review petition was maintainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the review application, holding it to be incompetent under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not affect the consideration of a special leave petition filed subsequently.

Law Points

  • Review application
  • maintainability
  • appeal against review order
  • habitual absenteeism
  • quantum of punishment
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2006 LawText (SC) (11) 119

Appeal (civil) 5023 of 2006

2006-11-17

Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta

Shiv Charan Singh

The State of Punjab & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of review application in service matter.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to challenge the dismissal of the review application.

Filing Reason

The review application was filed after the dismissal of the writ petition due to habitual absenteeism.

Previous Decisions

The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 12.8.2005.

Issues

Maintainability of appeal against review order Implications of habitual absenteeism on service benefits

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the High Court did not consider the correct factual position. Respondents contended that the review petition was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

An appeal against the dismissal of a review application is not maintainable as per Order 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Judgment Excerpts

The appeal is obviously incompetent. Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an appeal against the order of the court rejecting the review.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed and dismissed on 12.8.2005. A review application was subsequently filed and dismissed, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Attempt to Murder and Arms Act Case Due to Insufficient Evidence and FSL Report Discrepancies. Conviction under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act Set Aside as Prosecution Failed to Prove Intention and Weapon ...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Levy of Excise Duty on Intermediate Yarn in Fabric Manufacturing Process — Validity of Amendments Affirmed.