Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 529 (ORI)

Purna Chandra Samal v. Gopal Bagri

2017-05-05

S.N.PRASAD, SANJU PANDA

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dtd.20th March, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.2795 of 2015 on the grounds that (i) That this order has been passed in absence of the review petitioner who happens to be opposite party no.7 in the writ petition; and (ii) That there is one error in the order to the effect that at sub-paragraph of penultimate paragraph 5 the order reflects that an amount of Rs.28,70,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner but it has not been deposited by the petitioner, rather by the opposite party no.7. 2. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioner has vehemently opposed the averment made in the review petition by submitting that it is incorrect on the part of the review petitioner to say that the order has been passed in absencia, rather he has submitted that if the party will not appear before the court without making any motion for adjournment when his name is being reflected in the daily cause list, the court cannot wait for such party, rather the court is to proceed with the matter and on the day when the writ petition was listed on Board, the name of opposite party no.7 was appearing but the learned counsel representing opposite party No.7 has not put his appearance, as such the court has proceeded in the matter and finally disposed of the writ petition. He submits that this cannot be a ground for review of the order, hence prayer has been made to reject the review petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. He submits that this cannot be a ground for review of the order, hence prayer has been made to reject the review petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. We, after going through the record and perusing the order passed by this court dtd.20th March, 2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.2795 of 2015 have found that the opposite party No.7 who is the review petitioner herein had put his appearance, filed counter affidavit and when the case was listed on 20th March, 2017 none represented him nor any mention has been made on his behalf, hence the court has proceeded with the matter after quoting therein “today when the case has been called out none appears for opposite party No.7 to present his case, although name of learned counsel representing him is being displayed in the daily cause list, even prayer for adjournment has not been made on his behalf, furthermore on previous dates he was being represented by his counsel.” This court has proceeded with the matter on the basis of the pleading available on record as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No.7 and finally disposed of the writ petition. It is settled that the scope of review is very limited and that can only be done if there is any error apparent on the face of record or any fact could not have been brought on record in spite of all due diligence on behalf of the parties, but no such ground has been made in the review petition, as such the ground on which the review of the order passed by the writ court is sought for cannot be said to be a proper ground to review the order. Since we have already taken into consideration the entire aspect of the matter including the stand of opposite party no.7 in the counter affidavit and considering the fact that in absence of the parties proceeding cannot be adjourned unless specific motion has been made in this regard, but since none appears on repeated call, the court has proceeded with the matter and finally disposed of the writ petition. 4. 4. So far as the second ground that that there is one error in the order to the effect that at sub-paragraph of penultimate paragraph 5 the order reflects that an amount of Rs.28,70,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner but it has not been deposited by the petitioner, rather by the opposite party No.7., this aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for writ petitioner. According to us this cannot be a ground for review of the order since we after taking into consideration the fact that a substantial amount of Rs.28,70,000/- has been deposited by the opposite party no.7, hence directed the authorities at paragraph 6(iv) to return back the entire amount in his favour, hence it is merely a typographic error, accordingly we are modifying the word “petitioner” by replacing it by “opposite party no.7” in the 3rd line from the bottom of penultimate sub-paragraph of paragraph 5. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order, hence the review application is dismissed.