LexGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHER versus M/S K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 949 : 2024 INSC 454 Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Its Secretary, Land and Building Department & Another v. M/s K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 414 of 2023) In Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016 17 May 2024 [Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose to resolve as to which of the two views on maintainability of the Review petitions-Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruling in favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas the Hon’ble companion Judge on the Bench holding that the review petitions were not maintainable, is the correct view; can the review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions, be considered persons aggrieved; whether the last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case grants ‘liberty’ to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation case; if affirmative, did such ‘liberty’ survive after the decision in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; can the RPs be held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of Ord. XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; if no, do the review petitions still deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged therein; and if the miscellaneous applications are maintainable. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII r.1 – Application for review of judgment – Review petitions – In Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, split verdict by two Hon’ble judges – Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruled in favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas the Hon’ble companion Judge on the Bench held that the review petitions were not maintainable – In view of difference of opinion, the review petitions referred to larger Bench to resolve which of the two views on maintainability of the review petitions is the correct view – Issue arose as regards if the review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions, could be considered persons aggrieved; whether the 950 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case grants ‘liberty’ to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation case; did such ‘liberty’ survive after the decision in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; can the review petitions be held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case and if no, do the review petitions still deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged therein; and are the miscellaneous applications maintainable: Held: No review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based – Notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation case has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Ord. XLVII – Opinion expressed by the Hon’ble companion Judge on the said Division Bench is concurred with and this Court is not in agreement with the Hon’ble presiding Judge – Judgments and orders under review were right on the dates they were rendered, the review petitioners are not considered as persons aggrieved who can maintain a review petition citing either Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] and Shailendra [3-Judge] – However, it is held that the review petitioners can yet be considered persons aggrieved – Last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case does not grant ‘liberty’ to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation’s case – Review petitions cannot be held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of Ord. XLVII vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case – Review petitions do not deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged – Miscellaneous applications not maintainable – Under the circumstances, dismissal of the RPs and miscellaneous applications would have been logical – However, having regard to the disclosures made in course of progress of other proceedings before this Court, which followed immediatel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.