Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 174 (JK)

Basanti Kumari v. State Of J. &K.

2001-08-20

S.K.GUPTA

body2001
1.Through the currency of this petition, Harneet Kour and Moti Lal, herein petitioners, have sought the review of the order dated 31-05-1991 passed by the Court in so far as it relate to the petitioners and restoration of the petition for granting same relief as has been granted to the other petitioners vide aforesaid judgment in writ petitions, SWP No. 500/87 and SWP No. 851/88, inter alia on the grounds that without their instructions for not pressing the petition, their counsel stated before the Court to have no instructions from the petitioners to pros ecute the petition and in that view of the matter, the petition from these petitioners came to be dismissed by the Court, which amounted to an error and necessitates the Courts interference in exercise of its review jurisdiction. 2. In controverting the petitioners contention, objections came to be filed by Mr. M.I. Qadri, Sr. AAG appearing for the State in submitting that there is no ground, much less sufficient ground, carved out by the petitioners for review of the order through judicial apparatus. His further submission is that neither any new and important matter has been discovered which was not brought to the notice of the court nor any evidence procured nor there is any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record, which warrants the indulgence of the Court. According to Mr. Qadri, there are even no sufficient reasons made out for the review of the order as the petitioners were duly represented by an advocate, who withdrew his engagement by stating no instruction from his clients to prosecute the petition. Lastly, it is submitted that Mr. Wani was duly appointed advocate and had an authority in terms of Vakalatnama from the petitioners. There is no error apparent on the face of the record requiring Courts interference for reviewing the order. 3. Heard, considered the rival contentions of the parties and gone through the relevant provisions of law touching the matter in controversy. 4. Order 47 Rule 1 contemplates three grounds on which the review is permitted. A review is permissible in case of an error of law apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence after exercise of due diligence, which was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party when the order was passed or any other sufficient reason. A review is permissible in case of an error of law apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence after exercise of due diligence, which was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party when the order was passed or any other sufficient reason. Evidently, case of the petitioners is not covered by first two grounds, viz, discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at the time of passing of order or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Now the question arises whether the case of the petitioners for review is covered by the third ground "any other sufficient reason" under Order 47 Rule 1. 5. According to petitioners advocate, Mr. M.A. Qayoom, the statement made by the advocate of the petitioners to have no instructions from the petitioners to prosecute the petition was without any instructions or authority from the petitioners. The petitioners could not contact their advocate for sometime, but addressed communications to their counsel prosecuting the case, which perhaps had not been received by the counsel and, consequently, made a statement before the Court at the time of final arguments that there are no instructions from the petitioners to prosecute the petition. That all these facts and circumstances in the review petition would provide sufficient ground for granting review. 6. It is pertinent to point out that "any other sufficient reason" in the context of Order 47 Rule 1 is to be interpreted as meaning a reason sufficient on grounds at least and analogous to those specified and covered by all or any of the three grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1. It is not the case of the petitioners that Mr. Wani, who made statement before the Court to have no instructions to prosecute the petition from his clients at the time of final arguments, was not duly engaged and had authority in terms of Vakalatnama. Therefore, the petitioners are bound by the statement made by their counsel in the case before the Court. It is well settled position of law that admissions, concessions and withdrawals by a partys counsel are binding upon the party. Therefore, the petitioners are bound by the statement made by their counsel in the case before the Court. It is well settled position of law that admissions, concessions and withdrawals by a partys counsel are binding upon the party. There is no affidavit of the counsel filed with the application to show if he had received any communication from the clients as pleaded in the application and explain the circumstances, which induced him to state before the Court that he has no instructions from the petitioners to prosecute the petition. Where there has been a statement by the counsel that he has no instructions from his petitioners to prosecute the petition as a result of which the petition from those petitioners stood dismissed, the petitioners are not entitled to apply for review of petition on the ground that they never so instructed their advocate, who admittedly had been engaged by them and had such authority in terms of Vakalatnama that would not constitute the sufficient reason in terms of Order 47 Rule 1. Negligence of a counsel or negligence of a party neither provides sufficient reasons and nor grounds analogous to those specified immediately previously envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1. The contentions, therefore, urged by Mr. M.A. Qayoom being devoid of legal force and do not merit acceptance. 7. In the facts and circumstances, the inevitable conclusion reached is that the plea taken in the application is not a reason contemplated by Rule 1 nor is it analogous to any such reason so as to justify the interference of the Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction. Review Petition is without substance and, therefore, merits dismissal. No order as to costs.