PERAKAMMA Vs. M CHINNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular first appeal was disposed of by this court on 24-3-1995. Thereafter, the petitioners' learned Advocate presented an application pointing out that this is a very old litigation and also that as indicated in the judgment, the history of the dispute goes back several generations. He submitted that having regard to the status of the parties, for purposes of doing complete justice, the court must take into account the additional submissions that he desires to canvas in relation to survey No. 75/6 because the documents that have now been produced would make a material difference to the decision. Notice was issued to the other side and the matter has finally come up for hearing today. Learned Advocate for the respondents objected to any review or reconsideration of the matter because he submitted that the principles of law under which such a process can be undertaken are well-defined and that it is not open to a party after the disposal of an regular first appeal through a speaking order to thereafter come forward with a plea that certain material should be taken into consideration by the court on the ground that it affects the verdict. He also submitted that even on merits, no case is made out.

(2.) REGARDLESS of the objection, I have considered the nature of the application that is made. Petitioners' learned Advocate submits that the effect of the documents that are now sought to be relied upon would be that they would override the position as established hitherto and that therefore, as far as survey No. 75/6 is concerned that the order will require some review. He has further emphasised the fact that the court must take into account the status of the parties and not adopt a rigid Rule with regard to the refusal to reconsider an order merely because the application was made after disposal of the appeal.

(3.) THERE is a certain finality that will have to be observed with regard to that order. As indicated in the main judgment, this is very old litigation and this court after hearing the learned advocates and considering the case on merits has disposed of the matter on 24-3-1995. Thereafter, even if a party were to come forward and requests the court to reconsider that Order, such a review is only permissible in the limited situations that the law provides for. It is not open to courts to indiscriminately reopen cases in which final orders are passed and there is some justification in the opposition put forward by the respondents' learned Advocate when he submits that no case has been made out for review. The law provides that it is only where something very grave and something very material such as an important position of law or a judicial decision which would virtually go to the root of the matter has not been pointed out and further more, where the court is satisfied by the party that it has happened despite the best efforts made at the time of the hearing, that a court will reconsider an order. In the present instance, effectively the application is that some more material should be looked into. There is a total legal bar to allowing such a procedure and hence the request cannot be acceded to.