K ANJANEYULU Vs. COLLECTOR EXCISE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application seeks to review my order dated 17-2-1988 made in W.P. No. 14575/87. From the order it is clear that nobody appeared for the petitioners either on the date of hearing of the matter finally or on the previous day. It was stated in the order that "There is no representation made on behalf of the petitioners either yesterday or today". Now this review application has been filed stating that the order was passed on a misrepresentation made by the learned Govt. Pleader. The question which I should consider is whether it is open for a party to assail the correctness of a judgment which he helped the court to make by his unjustified non-participation on two days. In other words can a litigant have a a second go with the same matter having deliberately kept away in the 1st round? Is the time of the Court which is undoubtedly scarce like all economic goods and services can be spent on these recklessly negligent litigations more than the time the Court spends on bona fide litigants. I do not think I will be justified in reviewing the order at the instance of a party who had not chosen to be present for two consecutive days. Entertaining this review application in these circumstances would mean diverting the scarce judicial resources from the honest litigant to a reckless litigant. Then a party will be free to ask for two hearings of the matter. He will be absent when the matter is first heard being sure of a re-hearing in a review of judgment upon any error that may have crept into the judgment of the Court. It is a pity that our system of Judicial thinking makes us oblivious of these public considerations. I think it is not desirable now in the interests of administration of justice to encourage these defaulting parties who are so callous, negligent and indifferent towards these proceedings to raise these arguments by way of review application. I accordingly dismiss this application with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-. Application dismissed.