-·--
--
-
SHANTILAL MANGANLAL AND ANR.
v.
CHUNNILAL RANCHODDAS THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
24th July, 1984
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND D.P. MADON, JJ.]
Petition for Special Leave and Petltion for Review-If the petition filed
without giving the grounds of appeal they will be dismi.•·sed a.1 frivolous and an
abuse of the process of law-Order XVI and XL of Supreme Court Rules
1966-Duty of advocate. to court in filing pet/lions •
.,,...
An app1ication for review against the order of dismissal of the
Special Leave Petition dated 9.12.83 was filled without
disclosing any
ground fur review.
It \Vas averred that the petition was being filed so as
to be within the limitation prescribed under Order XL of the Supreme
Court Rules and that further grounds would be filed if advised.
However1
nothing was done though more than six months had elapsed by the da'.e
of bearing.
Dismissing the petition, expressing its deep dissatisfaction and anguish
with
the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for
Special
LcJ.ve
and petitions for Review were being filed in the Supreme Court, [206A]
HELD :
The application for review was nothing short of an abuse
'of the process of the court, a waste of the tl_me of the Court and was
entirely frivolous.
CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 249 of
1984.
In
Special Leace Petition (C) No. 13618 of 1983
CHAMBER MATTER-By Circulation
The Order of the Court was delivered by
205
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J,
This~pplication for Review is nothin~
If
A
B
c
D
E
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(I 985] I S.C.R.
short of an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of the time
of this Court, time which has now become so dear and prec'ous
because of the daily mounting arrears.
No ground for seeking a
review ismen tioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first para-
graph of the petition it is stated "This is an application for Review of
the order dated 9.12. 83, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to
dismiss the above Snecial Leave to Appeal (Civil).
The said order
discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be
clear from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in
the petition. for Special Leave to Appeal.
ft is submitted that since
·the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of
the ca,e, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the order".
Jn the second paragrnph we are told that no detailed grounds have
been taken (though in point of fact not a single ground is even
mentioned) as limitation is about to expire and "If so advised,
further set of grounds would be submitted for the consideration of
the Hon'ble Court" The petition was filed on 9 1.1984 and nothing
has been done though more than six months have passed since then.
The offer to file detailed grounds remains an unredeemed promise.
Possibly he was advised to file no further grounds as there was
none to be submitted. Good words were not to be thrown away
after bad.
To that extent, we may consider ourselves spared.
We
must however express our deep dissatisfaction and anguish with
the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for special leave and
petitions for review are being filed.
The present application is
entirely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.
S.R.
Petition dismissed.
,
Lex