PATRISHA SYMPLI Vs. NANDITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. K Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is nobody's dispute that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a revision petition being CR(P)No.(SH)24/2012, assailing the interim order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong (Judicial) in Misc. Case No.201(T) 2012. This fact is very clear from the pleadings of the revision petitioner in Para -9 of the revision petition, which reads as follows: -

(3.) ON bare perusal of the order of this Court dated 16.07.2012, it is crystal clear that the revision petition was dismissed as the revision petition was not pressed. Therefore, it is very clear that no liberty was sought for by the petitioner for filing afresh revision petition. The earlier petition i.e. CR(P)No.(SH)24/2012, challenged the same impugned interim order dated 01.06.2012. In this circumstances, this Court is compelled to make an observation that the Apex Court in a number of cases held that, second revision petition or second writ petition challenging the same order cannot be filed if the earlier revision petition or writ petition, had been dismissed without any liberty for filing afresh revision petition or writ petition as provided under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the CPC.