LexGANGADHARA PALO versus THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 3 S.C.R. 746 GANGADHARA PALO v. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 5280 of 2006) MARCH 08, 2011 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Review petition - Maintainability of - Writ petition by the appellant - Dismissed by High Court - SLP thereagainst also C dismissed - Review petition filed by the appellant before the High Court alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition - Dismissed by the High Court - Appeal before this Court - Plea of respondent that review petition was not maintainable because against the main D judgment of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, the appellant filed SLP which was dismissed - Held: There was a delay of 71 days in filing the revie petition - High Court should have taken a liberal view and condoned the delay - Thus, the delay in filing the review E petition before the High Court is condoned - As regards the maintainability of the review petition, it would make no difference whether the review petition was filed in the High Court before or after the dismissal of SLP - It is important whether the judgment of the High Court has merged into the F judgment of Supreme Court by the doctrine of merger or not - Where SLP is dismissed by giving some reasons, however, meager (it can be even of just one sentence), there would be a merger of the judgment of the High Court into the judgment of Supreme Court and after merger there is no judgment of the High Court - Thus, there can be no review of a judgment G which does not even exist - When SLP is dismissed without giving any reasons, there is no merger of the judgment of the High Court with the order of Supreme Court - The judgment of the High Court can be reviewed since it continues to exist, H 746 GANGADHARA PALO v. REVENUE DIVISIONAL 747 OFFICER & ANR. though the scope of the review petition is limited to errors A apparent on the face of the record - In the instant case, SLP was dismissed without giving any reasons, thus, there was no merger of the judgment of the High Court with the order of Supreme Court - The judgment of the High Court could be reviewed - Matter therefore, remitted to the High Court to B decide review petition on merits - Doctrine of merger- Delay/ Laches - Limitation. Kunhay Ammed and Ors vs. State of Kera/a and Anr (2002) 6 SCC 359; S. Shanmugavel Nadar vs. State of Tamil C Nadu and Anr. JT 2002 (7) SCC 568; State of Manipur vs. Thingujam Brojen Meetei AIR 1996 SC 2124; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Omaditya Verma and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2250 - Relied on. K. Ajamou/i vs. A. V.K.N Swamy (2001) 5 SCC 37 - D Referred to. Review - Power of - Held: Cannot be taken away by a judicial order as that has been conferred by the statute or the Constitution - By judicial order, the statute or the Constitutio'l E cannot be amended. Doctrines - Doctrine of merger - Held: By the doctrine of merger, the judgment of the lower court merges into the judgment of the higher court. Precedent - A precedent is a decision which lays down , some principle of law - Mere stray observation by Supreme Court would not amount to a precedent-" Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141. Case Law Reference: c2001 > 5 sec 37 c2002) 6 sec 359 Referred to Relied on JT 2002 (7) sec 568 Relied on Para 6 Para 9 Para 9 F G H A B 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS AIR 1996 SC 2124 AIR 2005 SC 2250 Relied on Relied on [2011) 3 S.C.R. Para 9 Para 9 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5280 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 28.01.2005 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, W.P.M.P. No. 29346 of 2004 in Review W.P.M.P. SR. 108493 of 2001 and Review WPMP. SR. 108493 of 2001 in W.P. No. 18933 C of 1988. P.S. Mishra, Tathagat H. Vardhan, Dhruv Kumar Jha, Ritu Raj Chaudhary (for Manu Shankar Mishra) for the Appellant. Sanjay Kapur, Abhishek Kumar, A. Nanda, V. Pattabhiram D (for G.N. Reddy) for the Respondents. The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER E Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment/order dated 28th January, 2005 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. F By that order, the review petition as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition have been dismissed. The delay was only of 71 days and, in ou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.