BIHARI LAL MONKA Vs. GOVT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Civil Review applications were heard analogously on preliminary objection being raised by the learned counsel for the parties that these applications cannot be heard and disposed of by me sitting singly.

(2.) The petitioners preferred these review applications for reviewing the order passed by the Division Bench on 22-4-1997 in CWJC Nos. 4187/96R, 4188/96R and 4189/96R. The aforesaid writ applications were heard analogously by me sitting with Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and disposed of by one common order with the consent of the parties. Similarly in Civil Review No. 9 of 1998 (R) prayer has been made for review/modify the order dated 6-8-1997 passed in CWJC No. 25 of 1989 (R), which was heard by the same Bench.

(3.) As Hon'ble Mr. Justice Eqbal was holding Court at Patna Bench at the relevant time (30-10-1998), all these review applications were placed for admission before me for disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the objection on the ground that when a judgment or an order is passed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, there is no provision either in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Patna High Court Rules for reviewing the said order but only because the High Court can review a judgment for the interest of justice under Article 226, the matter can be placed before the Hon'ble Chief justice for constituting a Bench for disposal of the same. It is submitted that even if Hon'ble Mr. Justice Eqbal was not available at Ranchi Bench for constituting a Division Bench, the matter should have placed before a Division Bench in which one of the Judges who was available at Ranchi Bench at that time. In that case, it is contended, myself should have been a member of the said Division Bench and by no means the matter could have been placed before me sitting singly.