RADHABALLAV MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act inter alia praying for condonation of delay in filing Review Petition No. 25 of 2005. After being unsuccessful before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 183 of 2003, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Review Petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, registered as Review Petition No. 25 of 2005, inter alia, praying to review the judgment of this Court passed on 11th December, 2002 in OJC No. 7646 of 1998. On verification, the Stamp Reporter has pointed out that there is a delay of two years and fifty -eight days in preferring the Review Petition. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Rule 27(A) of Chapter VI of the Orissa High Court Rules with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the Review Petition and to hear the Review Petition on merit.

(2.) IN para -5 of the Misc.Case it is asserted that though the application for review of the judgment dated 11th December, 2002 ought to have been filed within thirty days from the date of the said judgment, since the matter was carried to the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 183 of 2003 which was pending there till 21st February, 2003 when the same was dismissed at the admission stage, and in consonance with the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking review of the judgment of this Court. According to the petitioner, as he was prosecuting the lis bona fide and with due diligence before the Supreme Court till 21st February, 2005 and the Review Petition was filed on 9th of March, 2005, this Court may take a liberal view and condone the delay in order to give substantial justice.

(3.) MR . Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that certain documents which throw substantial light and were very much necessary for effectual adjudication of the dispute could not be produced before this Court at the time of hearing of the Writ application. According to him, if this Court would have had the occasion to peruse the said documents, there was every chance that this Court might have arrived at a different conclusion in its judgment. Non -production of the said documents affected the decision in the Writ application and therefore it is a fit case where the judgment passed by this Court in the said Writ application may be reviewed. Mr. Patnaik further submitted that the SLP filed before the Supreme Court was within time, but then the said petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court at the very threshold at the admission stage and thus the doctrine of merger will not apply to the present case and, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the Kunhayammed Case supra this Review Petition is maintainable and the same may be decided on merit after condoning the delay.