ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ANR. versus K. SANTHAKUMARAN AND ORS

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 09-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ABBAI MALIGAI PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
K. SANTHAKUMARAN AND ORS .. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE AND D.P. WADHWA, .JJ.] 
B 
Review-Special Leave petitions challenging order of High Cowt, dis-
missed by Supreme Cowt-17zereafter review petition filed in High Cowt cha/~ 
lenging the same order which was clzallelzged in SLPs-High Cowt allowing 
review petition-Held, High Cowt, being aware that SLPs against its orders 
C 
had already been dismissed, had no power or jwisdiction to review the self 
same order which was the subject matter of challenge in the SLPs-By passing 
the impugned orde1;. judicial prop1iety has been saC1ifice~I71e respondellls 
who approached the High Cowt after the dismissal of the SLPs abused the 
process of the Cowt and indulged in vexatious litigation-17ze manner i11 
which review petitio11 filed and heard in High Court, deprecate~Judicial D 
prop1iety-Rent and Eviction. 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4996-
4999 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.4.94 of the Madras High E 
Court in C.M.P. Nos. 16541 & 16542/89 and R.C.M.P. No. 44-45/94 in 
C.R.P. No. 4974-75 of 1983. 
S. Sivasubramaniam and V. Balachandran for the Appellants. 
V.R. Reddy, T. Raja, Jayaprakash Narain and Sunil Murarka for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
These appeals are directed against the order made by High Court of G 
Madras dated 7.4.1994 in Review C.M.P. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1994 in Civil 
Revision Petition Nos. 4974 and 4975 of 1983. 
The Rent Controller ordered eviction of the appellants in an eviction 
petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 on the ground of wilful default in . 
payment of rent and bonafide requirement of the premises by respondents H 
535 
536 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 1 and 2 for their own business. On appeal filed by the appellant - tenants, . 
it was found that there was a bonafide dispute with regard to the title of 
the property which could be decided by the Civil Court. The appellate 
authority set aside the order of the Rent Controller on 27.8.1983. Respon-
dent 1 and 2 thereupon preferred revision petitions in the High Court and 
by its order dated 7.1.1987, the High Court rejected both the revision 
B petitions, confirming the view of the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the 
orders of the High Court dated 7.1.1987, respondents 1 and 2 filed 
S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4039-4040 of 1987. The appellants appeared on caveat in 
the Supreme Court. Both sides were represented by senior Advocates of 
this court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the special leave 
C petitions were dismissed on 16.9.1987. After the dismissal of the special 
leave petitions by this court, the respondents filed review petitions No. 
CMP 44 and 45 of 1994 in the High Court seeking review of the order, 
dismissing civil revision petitions No. 4974 and 4975 of 1983 on 7.1.1987. It 
was the order dated 7.1.1987 (supra) which was the subject matter of 
D challenge in SLP(C) Nos. 4039-4040/87. There was also a delay of 221 days 
in filing the review petitions in the High Court after the dismissal of the 
special leave petitions. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned 
before us, not only condoned the delay of 221 days but also reviewed the 
earlier orders made on 7.1.1987, reversed the orders made in civil revision 
petitions and allowed civil revision petitions and ordered eviction of the 
E tenant - appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us against the 
order dated 7.4.1994 made in the review petitions. 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
F 
The manner in which the learned Single Judge of the High Court 
exercised the review jurisdiction, after the special leave petitions against 
the self-same order had been dismissed by this court after hearing learned 
counsel for the parties, to say the least, was not proper. Interference by the 
learned single Judge at that stage is ·subversive of judicial discipline. The 
High Court was aware that SLPs against the orders dated 7.1.87 had 
G already been dismissed by this court. This High Court, therefore, had no 
power or jurisdiction to review the self same order, which was the subject 
matter of challenge in the SLPs in this court after the challenge had failed. 
By passing the impugned order on 7.4.1994, judicial propriety has been 
sacrificed. After the dismissal of the special leave petitions by this court, 
H on contest, no review peti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.