OM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been filed against the judgment dated 24/09/2019 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.662/1997.

(2.) When the counsel for the applicants stood up to argue the matter, then a question was put to him as to whether the present review petition has been filed challenging the order on merits or there is an error apparent on the face of record. It was submitted by the counsel for the applicants that in fact, this review petition has been filed on merits as under his assessment an erroneous order has been passed by this Court. Accordingly, the counsel for the applicants was requested to address on the question of maintainability of the review petition on merits of the case and if the applicants are of the view that an erroneous order has been passed, then whether the only remedy available to them is to file a SLP or not? Instead of replying the query raised by this Court, the counsel for the applicants repeatedly insisted that since he has filed this review petition, therefore, this Court has to hear the case on merits and under his assessment, even the review on merits of the case is also maintainable. However, he did not cite any judgment in support of his contention and the counsel for the applicants persisted with his submission and since the applicants have filed the review petition, therefore, this Court must hear whatever the counsel for the applicants wants to argue. A similar hostile attitude was adopted by the counsel for the applicants while arguing Second Appeal No.662/1997. The conduct of the counsel for the applicants was also considered by this Court in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment. While arguing Second Appeal No.662/1997, the counsel for the applicants had not answered any query raised by this Court and today also, the counsel for the applicants is not interested in answering any query raised by this Court, therefore, this Court is left with no other option, but to hear the arguments only.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC had remained pending and the same has not been decided and the judgments on which this Court has placed reliance, are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the Court has passed the judgment mainly on the point of res judicata ignoring all the material facts and relevant provisions of law.