Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:39680-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 166 of 2025 1 - M/s. Shri Shyam Agro Products Through Its Proprietor- Shri Jay Shankar Sahu, S/o Laxman Sahu Aged About 39 Years Situated At Gram Labji, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - Shri Laxman Sahu S/o Bigan Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Ward No. 46, Bilaspur Road, Ambikapur, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
the judgment dated 15/04/2025 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 233/2025. 3. From perusal of the order sought to be reviewed and the materials available on record, it is apparent that Writ Appeal No. 233/2025., which was filed by the writ appellant / review petitioner herein against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 1065/2025, whereby the petition filed by Respondent No. 1/ Bank challenging order dated 16.01.2025 passed by District Magistrate Surguja under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of materials available on record and after hearing learned counsel for appellant i.e. Ms. Rajni Soren as well as Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the Respondent No. 1/ Bank therein vide order dated 15/04/2025, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the aforesaid Writ Appeal filed by the writ appellant/ review petitioner and the present review petition has been filed by the 3 / 5 another counsel, who was not counsel in the said writ appeal, for reviewing the said order. 4. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the review petition has filed by the new counsel, he states that as his client has instructed him to file the review petition, hence, he has filed the instant review petition. Be that as it may. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr vs N. Raju Reddiar & Anr, reported in (1997) 9 SCC 736, has deprecated the practice of filing successive applications after decision of the case and that too, by engaging different Counsel. The aforesaid judgment is being reproduced below: "1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-opposite party when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record 4 / 5 who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained "No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for 5 / 5 doing so. Filing of the "No Objection Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate- on- Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On
Arguments
3 - Smt. Phuleshwari Devi W/o Shri Laxman Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 46, Bilaspur Raod, Ambikapur, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Chanda Sahu, W/o Shri Jay Shankar Sahu, Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 46, Bilaspur Road, Ambikapur, Police Station Manipur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Central Bank of India Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The District Collector & District Magistrate Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondents : For Petitioners For Respondent No.1 : For Respondents/State : Mr. Syed A.H. Rizvi, Advocate Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. GA ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.08 18:06:46 +0530 2 / 5 Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 08/08/2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed A.H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as Mr. Parth Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for respondent / State. 2. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing
Decision
these grounds, we dismiss the review petition." 6. The observation made in N. Raju Reddiar (supra) has been further relied upon by the Allahabad High Court in the recent judgment in the matter of Jai Singh vs The State of U.P. through its Principal decided on 13 April, 2023. 7. In the light of aforesaid settled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above stated judgment, the present review petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu