Case Note & Summary
The case involved a review petition filed by Shantilal Manganlal and another against the dismissal of their Special Leave Petition on December 9, 1983. The petition for review was submitted on January 9, 1984, but it failed to disclose any grounds for the review, merely stating that further grounds would be provided if advised. Over six months passed without any additional grounds being filed, leading to the court's frustration with the manner in which such petitions were being submitted. The court noted that the review petition did not hint at any grounds for review and was considered an abuse of the court's process, wasting valuable time. The court expressed deep dissatisfaction with the indiscriminate filing of petitions and ultimately dismissed the review petition as frivolous, emphasizing the need for proper grounds to be presented in such applications. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in filing petitions to ensure the efficient functioning of the court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Grounds for Review - Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Order XL - Review petition was filed without disclosing any grounds, merely stating intention to file further grounds if advised. Court expressed dissatisfaction with the indiscriminate filing of petitions and held that the application was an abuse of the process of the court and entirely frivolous. Held that such petitions waste the court's time and should be dismissed (Paras 206-207).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition filed without disclosing any grounds for review should be dismissed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, stating it was an abuse of the process of the court and entirely frivolous.
Law Points
- Review petitions
- Special Leave Petitions
- Abuse of process of law
- Supreme Court Rules
- Advocate's duty
