BACHHRAJ NAHAR Vs. NILIMA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 recorded in Second Appeal No. 76 of 1989 by this Court. Since this petition was filed with delay. I.A. No. 3374 of 2004 was filed for condoning the delay. On notice the opposite Parties have appeared through counsel and both sides have been heard, with consent, both upon the application for condonation of delay as well on the petition for review.

(2.) FIRST taking up I.A. No. 3374 of 2004, the delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground of illness of the petitioner for which medical papers have also been filed. The delay is condoned. Thereafter, learned counsel for both the parties have been heard on the main application for review, as aforesaid, and this matter is being disposed of with their consent, at this stage itself.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the other side submitted that in the judgment this Court was aware that no such expressed relief had been sought but this grant of relief was inherent in the averment of the pleading and could have been granted under law and under such circumstances this Court had found that no fresh evidence was required for grant of that relief. It was also argued that the scope of review was very limited and if the aggrieved party was not satisfied with the judgment or order of a Court, that party could always move the higher court, in this case, the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that this Court should reopen the entire hearing on those two points which this Court could not do and for that the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja V/s. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary; A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 455.