High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110794 Court No. - 4 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 207 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Shrish Singh Opposite Party :- The Purvanchal Bank And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pradeep Kumar Sinha Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. (Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. ___ of 2025) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Cause shown for delay in filing the review application is sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly the delay in the filing the review application is hereby condoned and the delay condonation application is allowed. (Order on Review Application) 1. Heard Sri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pradeep Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this review petition petitioner seeks review of my order dated 03.09.2024 as corrected on 23.11.2024 as there is no direction for interest to be paid to the petitioner on the post retirement dues. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that interest should have been paid on account of order passed by the disciplinary authority. 4. Per contra it is argued by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that the order was assailed before the Division Bench in Special Appeal which too came to be dismissed and hence the order passed in the writ petition stood merged with the order of special appeal and therefore, no review petition is now maintainable in respect of an order earlier passed in the writ petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, in any view in so far as the interest part in the relevant relief clause of the writ petition is concerned, ought to have been passed at the time of final judgment passed in the writ petition. It is well settled that if a ground raised or relief claimed is not pressed at the time of argument, the judgment shall be taken as final as if either grounds and relief were not pressed or if pressed Court rejected the same and hence this cannot be a ground to review the order passed in writ petition. Very recently an authority in the matter of Kunhayammed & Others v. State of Kerala & Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 Supreme Court has laid down guidelines in which vide para 40 Court has drawn principles upon which review can be filed further where appeal has been preferred and dismissed, no review can be entertained under Order 47 C.P.C. 7. Paragraph no. 40 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "40. To sum up our conclusions are :- (i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution is divisible into two stages. First stage is upto the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stage commences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and special leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimite application. It will depend on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be determinative of the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the former and not to the latter. iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the apex court of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties. (vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court has been invoked the order passed in appeal would attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be of reversal, modification or merely affirmation. (vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order 47 of the C.P.C."
Decision
8. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to review my order dated 0309.2024 as corrected vide order dated 23.11.2024. 9. Review petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad