Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 191 (MEG)

Abida Begum v. Md. Sulaiman

2014-08-18

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2014
Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh; ACJ. 1. Heard Mr. Mr. AS Siddiqui, learned counsel for the review petitioners, Ms. R Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. KP Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. SP Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by BS Lyngdoh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 2. The review petitioners approached this Court for re-hearing of WP(C) No. 1/2014, which had finally been disposed of by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2014, alleging that the petitioners had all along been paying rents to the then Mutwallis Haji Kamu Mia and Md. Taiyab (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) and since time it was declared by the High Court that Shri. Md. Taiyab is no more the Mutwalli, the petitioners have been approaching the present Mutwalli, Md. Sulaiman (writ petitioner) to accept their rents. Md. Taiyab opted not to contest the WP(C) No. 1/2014 and the review petitioners, who entered into the shoe of Md. Taiyab asked for rehearing of the WP(C) No. 1/2014. In the present application for review, nothing had been mentioned as to when and how they became tenants of the present Mutwalli, Md. Sulaiman. It is also stated in the review petition that the review petitioners have been depositing rents in the court. However, neither copies of the orders of the court nor the documents for depositing rents in the court are annexed in the present review petition. 3. It is a settled position of law that the principle of finality of the judgment of superior court should be maintained inasmuch as review petitions are not to be taken as a routine course. The Apex Court in Lily Thomas & Ors v. Union of India & Ors: (2006) 6 SCC 224 held that review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review cannot be exercised merely to substitute the point of law or new decision. 4. The Apex Court in Sow Chandra Kanta & Anr. V. Sheikh Habib: : AIR 1975 SC 1500 held that once an order passed by the superior court i.e. Supreme Court or the High Court is final and cannot be interfered with lightly. The power of review cannot be exercised merely to substitute the point of law or new decision. 4. The Apex Court in Sow Chandra Kanta & Anr. V. Sheikh Habib: : AIR 1975 SC 1500 held that once an order passed by the superior court i.e. Supreme Court or the High Court is final and cannot be interfered with lightly. An application for review of the earlier judgment of the superior court cannot be entertained for the purpose of rehearing of the case, which had been finally disposed of. 5. The Apex Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.: : (2014) 5 SCC 75 held that in view of the explanation to Rule 1 Order 47 CPC, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order. On careful perusal of the order sought for review in the present review petition vis-à-vis review petition, it is clear that there is no error apparent on the face of the order. However, the review petitioners want rehearing of the writ petition, which was finally disposed of on the ground that the petitioners are the tenants of the present Mutwalli; matter for appointment of the writ petitioner as Mutwalli had already been decided by the Gauhati High Court and upheld by the Apex Court. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the review petitioners utterly failed to make out a case for reviewing the final judgment and order of this Court dated 12.08.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 1/2014. 7. Review petition is dismissed.