ABIDA BEGUM Vs. MD. SULAIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Mr. AS Siddiqui, learned counsel for the review petitioners, Ms. R Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. ND Chullai, learned Sr. GA assisted by Mr. KP Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Mr. SP Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by BS Lyngdoh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE review petitioners approached this Court for re -hearing of WP(C) No. 1/2014, which had finally been disposed of by the judgment and order dated 12.08.2014, alleging that the petitioners had all along been paying rents to the then Mutwallis Haji Kamu Mia and Md. Taiyab (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) and since time it was declared by the High Court that Shri. Md. Taiyab is no more the Mutwalli, the petitioners have been approaching the present Mutwalli, Md. Sulaiman (writ petitioner) to accept their rents. Md. Taiyab opted not to contest the WP(C) No. 1/2014 and the review petitioners, who entered into the shoe of Md. Taiyab asked for rehearing of the WP(C) No. 1/2014. In the present application for review, nothing had been mentioned as to when and how they became tenants of the present Mutwalli, Md. Sulaiman. It is also stated in the review petition that the review petitioners have been depositing rents in the court. However, neither copies of the orders of the court nor the documents for depositing rents in the court are annexed in the present review petition.

(3.) THE Apex Court in Sow Chandra Kanta & Anr. V. Sheikh Habib: : AIR 1975 SC 1500 held that once an order passed by the superior court i.e. Supreme Court or the High Court is final and cannot be interfered with lightly. An application for review of the earlier judgment of the superior court cannot be entertained for the purpose of rehearing of the case, which had been finally disposed of.