Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1477 (PNJ)

JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

2011-08-01

AJAI LAMBA

body2011
JUDGMENT AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) - It is not in dispute that the documents placed on record along with the review application, were not before the Writ court at the point in time when the writ petition was heard. 2 Learned counsel further has not been able to dispute that the legal aspect sought to be argued at this stage, was not argued when arguments in writ petition were heard. 3 A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with Review Application No.174 of 2005 in CWP 17259 of 2004 (Mohinder Pal Bali v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others), decided on 5.8.2005, in regard to the scope of interference in review application, has held in the following terms:- “Normally, when the matter is being decided at motion stage, it is not possible always to notice all the judgments cited by the learned counsel. We had considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel, but reference was not made to the aforesaid two judgments as the same were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. It is not necessary that each and every argument raised by the counsel and each and every authority cited by the learned counsel, has to be considered, whether they are relevant or irrelevant. Given the huge pendency of old cases before the High Court, the Court has to perform a balancing act whilst recording the orders at the motion stage. The requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme in numerous cases is that when the petition is being disposed of at motion stage, the court should pass a speaking order. The requirement is not that an elaborate judgment be written dealing with all the relevant as well as irrelevant judgments that may be cited by the learned counsel. We have been constrained to pass a detailed order, in view of the tendency of the Advocates in the High Court to file review petitions, before challenging the order before the Supreme Court in SLP. The High Court has very limited jurisdiction to review its own orders. The parameters within which such jurisdiction is to be exercised, has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. The High Court has very limited jurisdiction to review its own orders. The parameters within which such jurisdiction is to be exercised, has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1047 wherein it has been observed as under:- “3.The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exhibits A/1 and A/3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, 'settlement' made in favour of the different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh V. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definite limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.” (Emphasis Supplied). Therefore, even if the counsel for the petitioner was of the opinion that our order dated 18.7.2005 was erroneous, the same ought to have been challenged by adopting the normal remedy of appeal. Therefore, even if the counsel for the petitioner was of the opinion that our order dated 18.7.2005 was erroneous, the same ought to have been challenged by adopting the normal remedy of appeal. There were no justifiable grounds for filing the Review Petition.” 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Daman Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 670, has held (in para-13) in the following terms:- “13.The final submission of Shri Ramamurthi was that several other questions were raised in the writ petition before the High Court but they were not considered. We attach no significance to this submission. It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumerable grounds in the petitions and memoranda of appeal etc., but, later, confine themselves , in the course of argument to a few only of those grounds , obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable. No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered. If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. The time of the superior courts is not to be wasted in inquiring into the question whether, a certain ground to which no reference is found in the judgment of the subordinate court was argued before that court or not ?” 5 Pleadings include documents placed on record as annexures. When a document is placed on record along with a writ petition, it is explained in the body of the writ petition in regard to its relevance and as to why the said document has been placed on record and what ground of challenge emerges thereupon. 6 A civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed in case of a writ petition. 6 A civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed in case of a writ petition. When a writ petitioner raises a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts, he must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and accompanying documents. If he is a respondent, the facts asserted are required to be proved from the written statement/counter affidavit and supporting documents. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the written statement/counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. 7 Considering the scope of review, as held in the judgments cited above, it becomes evident that the applicants have no case for interference. Not only the documents were not placed before the Writ court for its consideration, even legal issues raised at this stage were not raised. 8 There has to be a terminus to every lis. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for review of decision dated 30.5.2011 is made out. 9. The application is dismissed.