THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RANA PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and opposite party no. 1.

(2.) The petitioners have filed the present application seeking the review of the order dated 17.06.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19035 of 2011. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the opposite party no. 1 has been disposed off with the observation that the relief sought by the petitioner would be governed by the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. CC 22478 of 2011. It was further observed that if the respondents do not succeed in the SLP, the petitioner would be entitled to corresponding benefits and would be at liberty to file appropriate application, if the relief sought by him is not being redressed by the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 (writ petitioner) raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present application. It was submitted that the same is beyond the parameters of review as per Order 47 Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was further submitted that the review petition itself has been filed after two years from the date of passing of the order under review without any petition seeking condonation of delay and also without disclosing the reasons justifying filing of the application after such a long delay. For such proposition learned counsel has referred to and relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ragho Singh v. Mohan Singh reported as 2001(3) PLJR (SC) 137, the relevant being at paragraph no. 6; the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hem Narain Singh v. Ganesh Singh reported as 1994 (2) PLJR 855. It was further argued that under the guise of review, it is not permissible to reargue the same points which have been agitated earlier and rejected as the same is not a right of appeal. For such proposition, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported as 2006 (3) PLJR (SC) 99, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 11 and 12.