BALDEV RAJ Vs. CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present review application has been filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the CPC for review of judgment dated 14.11.2011 passed by this Court in .

(2.) The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the applicant-petitioner, which was argued at length and ultimately learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement before this Court that the dispute was with regard to calculation of the amount. It was also stated by the counsel for the petitioner that calculation made by the respondents is correct and he does not dispute the calculation made by the respondents. On the basis of statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, following order was passed:-

(3.) The case was argued by another counsel on behalf of the petitioner, namely, Mr. Pankaj Jain and review application has been filed by Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, who was not the counsel for the petitioner in the main writ petition. The grounds taken in the review application is that a wrong statement was made and because of that statement the order was passed, whereas, earlier counsel was not authorized to make that statement Notice of the application was issued to the counsel opposite. Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the case was heard at length and when the Court did not agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, then the calculation was prepared by counsel for the respondents as well as by the counsel for the petitioner. After perusing the calculation, counsel for the petitioner agreed with the calculation done by the counsel for the respondents and made a statement, on the basis of which, order in the main case was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents has also raised an objection about maintainability of the review application as the review filed by another counsel is not maintainable.