Delhi High Court
Sh.Virendra Jain vs Sh.Naresh Dayal & Others on 23 April, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.A. NO.171 OF 2010
IN
+ CONT CASE (C) No.545/2008
%
Date of Decision: 23.04.2010
Sh.Virendra Jain Petitioner-applicant
Through Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj & Mr.Jagrati Singh,
Advocates.
Versus
Sh.Naresh Dayal & others .... Respondents
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO
in the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
CM No.7444/ 2010 in R.A.No.171/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
R.A. NO.171/2010
The petitioner/applicant has sought a review of order dated 19th
February, 2010 whereby the Contempt Petition filed by the
petitioner/applicant being Contempt Case (C) No.545 of 2008 was
dismissed.
In the writ petition filed by the petitioner an order dated 21st
September, 2007 was passed directing the respondents to make
payments of amounts due to the petitioner. During the period, the
petitioner was not present, the period had been treated as 'Dies non',
and consequently, the amount for the period which was treated as 'Dies
non' had not been paid. Petitioner/Applicant, therefore, filed an
application invoking jurisdiction of the Court under Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 for a direction to the respondents to pay amounts due to him.
This Court while passing the order dated 19th February, 2010
noticed that on account of the order passed treating the period of leave
as 'Dies non' and fixing pay from 1st January, 1996 at Rs.8,000-
13,500/-, it could not be held that there was any willful and intentional
violation of order dated 21st September, 2007.
While dismissing the Contempt Petition, it had also been clarified
that the petitioner/applicant shall be entitled to take appropriate
remedy against the order passed by the respondents for treating the
period of leave as 'Dies non' and fixing pay from 1st January, 1996 at
Rs.8,000-13,500/-.
The petitioner/applicant by the present application has again
reiterated the facts and has contended that the respondents have
converted certain periods of medical leave into 'Dies non' and has
recovered Rs.46,570/- as intimated to the petitioner/applicant by order
dated 14th November, 2008. The petitioner/applicant has also given in
the grounds for review, details of the payments made to him, and has
contended that the order dated 19th February, 2010 dismissing the
Contempt Petition has an error of question of facts, as the Court has
missed non-payment of all the dues which became payable to the
petitioner/applicant.
Perusing the application reflects that attempt of the
petitioner/applicant by filing the present application is only to re-agitate
the issues which have already been decided by this Court. No error
much less error apparent on the face of record can be cured in the facts
and circumstances. An error which is not self evident and has to be
detected by a passage of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of record. This principle was reiterated by the
Supreme Court in the Case of 'Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and
others' Manu/SC/0327/08. It was cautioned by the Apex Court that in
exercise of power of review, the Court does not substitute its view
though the mistake may be corrected. This is also true that mere
possibility of another view on the subject is not a ground to review. A
review cannot be sought for fresh hearing, or arguments, or correction
of an erroneous view taken earlier. The power of review could be
exercised only for correction of a patent error of law, or fact which
stares and becomes apparent on the face without any elaborate
arguments needed establishing it.
In the circumstances, it is apparent that pursuant to order dated
21st September, 2007 some amount was paid and the period of leave
was treated as 'Dies non'. In the circumstances, there is no error
apparent in the order dated 19th February, 2010 dismissing the
application for contempt of Court by the petitioner/applicant. For the
foregoing reasons, there is no ground to review order dated 19th
February, 2010, and the application is, therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
APRIL 23, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'VK'
