LALZAKHARA Vs. ROTLUANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 to this review) and respondents 5 to 43 in Civil Rule No. 64 (MB) of 1990 were Junior Engineers in PHE Department of Mizoram. By judgment delivered on 22.3.94 in that Civil Rule 1 declared the writ petitioner to be senior to respondents 5 to 43.

(2.) Now the applicants (Lalzakhama and C. Lalhmachhuana) who are also Junior Engineer of PHE but not a party to the Civil Rule, have filed this application for review stating that they were senior to the writ petitioner but because of this judgment they have now become junior to him. The respondent No.l to this review filed counter affidavit on merit without taking objection to applications locus standi to file the review. Respondent No. 2 (State of Mizoram, PHE Deptt) did not file affidavit. The relevant part of Order 47 which provides for review is as follows:

(3.) I have perused the cases relied on by the counsel for either party but found that none of the cases is an answer to the description of the case in hand. So, I have searched for appropriate authority and found one in Bharat Singh vs. Sheo Prasad, AIR 1978 Delhi 22, where it was said: A review application can be filed only by a party to the lis in which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed. It cannot be preferred by a third party. It could not be contended that the phrase "any person considering himself aggrieved" would include any one who is adversely affected by the impugned order, whether that person is or is not-party to the lis in which the impugned order has been passed. As will be apparent from a reading of the rule any person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or order may apply for review provided he can establish that he "from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decision was passed or order made." This postulates that the person applying for review has to satisfy two conditions, namely that he is aggrieved by the order and also that he for the reasons mentioned was not in a position to bring that fact to the notice of the Court earlier which resulted in a wrong order being passed. If these two conditions are necessary before a review application can be moved, it follows that the review application has to be made by a person who was a party to the lis decided by the impugned order or decree. This review is based on the principle that a decree or order adversely affecting a person who is not a party to the lis in which that order or decree is passed is in law not binding on him. Such a person, therefore, can ignore the order or decree which adversely affects him and so, cannot apply for a review of that order or decree. He may take such other steps as may be available to him in law to protect his right as and when the order or decree adversely affecting him is sought to be enforced so as to jeopardise his rights.