LexSTATE OF ASSAM versus RIPA SARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 151
STATE OF ASSAM
V.
RIPA SARMA
{Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2671 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 20, 2013
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
A
B
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Special Leave
Pettion - Against the judgment of High Court dismissing the
review petition - Held: In absence of challenge to the main C
judgment of High Court, the SLP filed challenging only the
subsequent order rejecting the review petition, is not
maintainable.
Shanker Motiram Nale vs. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput 0
(1994) 2 SCC 753; Suseel Finance and Leasing Company
. vs. M. Lata and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 675; M.N. Haider and
Ors. vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. (2004) 13
sec 677 - relied on.
Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14
E
SCC 295: (2008) 11 SCR 369 - held per incuriam.
Case Law Reference:
(1994) 2 sec 753
relied on
Para 5
F
c2004) 13 sec 675
relied on
Para 5
(2004) 13 sec 677
relied on
Para 5
(2008) 11 SCR 369
held per incurium Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave . G
Petition (C) No. 2671 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2010 of the
151
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 4 S.C.R.
A Gauhati High Court in Review Petition No. 8 of 2010.
Jayant Bhushan, Avijit Roy (for Corporate Law Group),
Parthiv K. Goswami, S. Hari Haran, Charu Mathur, J.M.
Sharma, Raka B. Phookan, Neha Tandon Phookan, Shailesh
B Madiyal for the Appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
C
1. We have heard Mr. Avijit Roy, learned counsel for the
petitioner-State of Assam as well as Mr. Jayant Bhushan,
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent at length.
D
2. Mr. Jayant Bhushan has raised a preliminary objection
to the maintainability of the special leave petition.
3. The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed
by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated 26th
February, 2010 dismissing the review petition filed by the
petitioner seeking review of the judgment and order dated 20th
E November, 2007 rendered in Writ Appeal No. 279 of 2007. The
Division Bench has dismissed the review petition on the ground
that in substance, the applicant seeks rehearing of Writ Appeal
No. 279 of 2007 on the basis of certain facts, which were not
brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the
F appeal.
4. It is not disputed before us that judgment and order
dated 20th November, 2007 passed in Writ Appeal No. 279
of 2007 was not challenged by way of a special leave petition
before this Court. In fact, the aforesaid judgment and order is
G not even challenged in the present special leave petition.
H
Therefore, the special leave petition is restricted in its
challenge, to the order passed by the Division Bench
dismissing the review petition on 26th February, 2010.
5. In support of the submission that the present special
STATE OF ASSAM v. RIPA SARMA
153
leave petition is not maintainable, Mr. Bhushan has relied on
A
three judgments of this Court. In Shanker Motiram Nale versus
Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput reported in (1994) 2 SCC 753,
it has been held that the special leave petition which has been ·
filed against the order rejecting the review petition would be
barred under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code,
B
1908. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court
in Suseel Finance and Leasing Company versus M. Lata and
Others reported ·in (2004) 13 SCC 675. This Court held that
not only was it bound by the aforesaid judgment in Shanker
Motiram Nale case, but was also in agreement with it. The law c
laid down in both the aforesaid judgments was further reiterated
in the case of M.N. Haider and Others versus Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others reported in (2004) 13 SCC
677.
6. In view of the above, the law seems to be well settled
D
that in the absence of a challenge to the main judgment, the
special leave petition filed challenging only the subsequent
order rejecting the review petition, would not be maintainable.
7. Faced with this situation, Mr. Avijit Roy, learned counsel
E
appearing for the State of Assam seeks to rely on a subsequent
judgment of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Limited versus
Dugal Kumar reported in (2008) 14 SCC 295. He has made
a specific reference to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment.
In paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is observed as follows :-
F
"It was submitted by the learneExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.