Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 934 (RAJ)

Arjun Singh v. Bajrang Lal

2016-07-05

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This review petition has been filed by the applicant seeking review of order dated 22.7.2011 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which is no longer available. 2. The principal ground for filing review petition is that the applicant had filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for bringing on record additional evidence. This Court ordered on the application that the same would be considered at the time of hearing. However, while deciding the appeal, the said application has not been considered. 3. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jadnder Singh and anr. v. Mehar Singh and ors., 2008 DNJ (SC) 915. 4. Another ground raised is that the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant were not taken into consideration while deciding the appeal and therefore, the same calls for review of the order passed by this Court. A perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.7.2011 indicates that the same is a considered judgment, wherein the submissions made by learned Counsel for the applicant have been noticed and thereafter, the same has been determined, whereby the compensation determined by the Tribunal was enhanced by this Court. 5. The grievance regarding non-consideration of submissions raised, cannot be made a subject matter of the review petition. 6. So far as non-consideration of application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. is concerned, from a perusal of the order, it appears that no submissions regarding the application were made by the applicant. 7. In the judgment of Jatinder Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that an application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. has to be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal. However, for consideration of the application, it is necessary that the same must be argued and pressed by the Counsel. As already noticed, from perusal of the order, it is apparent that the application was not argued, therefore, the judgment has no application. 8. In view thereof, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of record so as to require review of the judgment passed by this Court. 9. No case for review is made out. The review petition is dismissed.