P I RAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking review of the judgment in C.M.A. No.1301/1989 and C.R.P. No.3611 /1988, dated 21-7-1995, these review petitions are filed. It is contended by the review petitioner that the refusal to grant interest pendente lite is not in accordance with the binding pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the judgment suffers from an error apparent on its face. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner that there is also 'sufficient reason' within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. for reviewing the judgment, as otherwise, it would lead to miscarriage of justice. A factual error that has occurred in paragraph 35 on account of the representation made by the Counsel himself has also been pointed out: At paragraph 35, we held as follows:

(2.) On a closer scrutiny of the decision of the Supreme Court in the light of the facts which presented themselves for consideration in that case, we find force in the contention of the review petitioner. We get a clear picture of the facts of that case from the judgment of the High Court from which the appeal went upto the Supreme Court. On the analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Durgaram Prasad's case with special reference to the context and factual setting in which the observations were made, we have now come to the irresistible conclusion that the true ratio underlying the Supreme Court's decision was not understood by us in its proper perspective. By wrongly understanding the ratio, we declined to follow the larger Bench decisions including the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in G.C. Roy's case. When once this mistake was realised in the course of arguments presented to the Division Bench of which one of us (PVR, J.) was a member, the Division Bench explained at length the true scope and ratio of the said decision in the judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 14-6-1996 in C.M.A. No.357 of 1991 and batch (1996 (3) ALT 53). As we are in agreement with the views and clarificatory remarks made by the Bench in that case, we better quote extensively what the Division Bench has said in that case.

(3.) The Division Bench then proceeded to refer to and analyse the observations made in that judgment so as to understand the true ratio of that decision. It was then observed: