U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DEPUTY G.M. Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ETAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST has been revised. The learned Counsel for respondent is not present. Heard Shri Sameer Sharma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Initially, the Trial Court granted an ex parte injunction, but subsequently, the ex parte injunction was vacated. The plaintiff filed a miscellaneous appeal, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, it transpires that, a review application was filed by the plaintiff which was allowed and an injunction was granted by the Lower Appellate Court. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) IN my opinion, no injunction could be granted on the review application. The review applications are only meant to correct the error apparent on the face of the record and does not entitle the Court to re -open the entire case or rehear the matter or grant an injunction. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court on the review application was patently illegal and cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.