SURAJ BHAN GOEL Vs. DHAPO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been presented under section 115, Civil P. C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The competency of the revision under section 1 15, Civil P. C. is not pressed and the petitioners' counsel has tried to justify his claim to interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) I he impugned order merely declined an application for reviewing an earlier order mAde by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The grounds on which the prayer for review was disallowed are both on the merits and on the competency oi the application for review. After considering the various dates of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal it was observed that it could not be said that the evidence of the respondents before Tribunal was closed without giving enough opportunity to them or that the order dated 22nd May, 1968, which was sought to be reviewed, was against law or there was any legal mistake in that order. But this apart, no new fact was stated to have come to light as the result where of some further evidence was necessary to be led. There being no specific provision permitting review the learned Tribunal disallowed the prayer.

(3.) Although the learned counsel for the respondents has tried to take me through the proceedings for the purpose of showing that there was neither any equitable nor just ground for giving another opportunity to the petitioner in this Court for leading evidence before the Tribunal I have not considered it proper to go into these details because under Article 227 of the Constitution I cannot go into the details like an appellate court. It is conceded by the petitioners' learned counsel that there was no provision of law applicable to the present case which permits review of an earlier order by the Tribunal. If that is so then I am afraid, the impugned order cannot be held to be so greviously infirm as to justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution which has to be sparingly used in case of emergency and gross violation of law leading to grave infustice. It cannot be invoked for permitting the parties to fill 'a lacunae in the defence of their cases where they have been guilty of lapses or omissions.