Delhi High Court
National Textile Corporation ... vs Uoi & Anr on 8 July, 2014
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 08th July, 2014
+ Review Petition No.286/2014, CM No.10198/2014 (for condonation
of 57 days delay in applying therefor) & CM No.10200/2014 (for
impleadment of Union of India also through the Ministry of
Textiles and Sitaram Mills Ltd. as respondents to the appeal) in
LPA 808/2012.
NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. .... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Adv.
Versus
UOI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, Adv. for UOI.
Mr. Arti Singh, Adv. for R-2/Review
Petitioner.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
1. The respondent no.2 UCO Bank seeks review of judgment dated 10th
February, 2014 allowing the aforesaid appeal.
2. We have, without entering into the aspect of delay in applying for
review, heard the counsel for the review applicant / respondent no.2 on merits
of the review petition.
3. We may at the outset state that the counsel who has applied for review on
behalf of the respondent no.2 UCO Bank was not the counsel in the appeal and
not the counsel who had appeared when the appeal was heard. The counsel now
appearing also does not controvert that the stand taken by the earlier counsel in
response to the appeal or at the time of hearing was as recorded in the judgment
dated 10th February, 2014. Instead of pointing out any mistake or error
apparent on the face of the existing record what is done, is to blame the earlier
counsel for not bringing the correct facts before this Court and a case, entirely
different from that earlier set up in response to the appeal and taken at the time
of hearing, is sought to be taken.
4. A review is not intended to be a second chance / second innings. It is not
meant to be an opportunity for different counsels applying their respective legal
acumen to attempt to differently argue a matter. The counsel now appearing
for the respondent No.2 UCO Bank wants to argue the appeal afresh and on
grounds which were not taken by the counsel who had earlier argued the
appeal. The same, in our view is impermissible. It is not for a litigant to judge
the counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. Once the case has been
fully argued and decided on merits, no application for review lies on the ground
that the case should have been differently argued. A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise. The Supreme Court, in Dokka Samuel Vs. Dr. Jacob
Lazarus Chelly (1997) 4 SCC 478 held that even omission to cite an authority
of law is not a ground for reviewing the prior judgment. Similarly, in Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board Vs. N. Raju Reddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736 it was held that
review is not and should not be an attempt for hearing the matter again on
merits; the practise of a different advocate appearing at the stage of review, was
deprecated.
5. Though in the review application it is vaguely stated that a counter
affidavit had been filed by the review applicant / respondent no.2 before the
learned Single Judge but upon our asking the counsel for the review applicant /
respondent no.2 whether what is now stated in the review application was
stated in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge, the counsel
now appearing though not in custody of the said counter affidavit fairly admits
that it was not so pleaded.
6. Though the aforesaid is enough to dismiss this review application, we
may also record that the new version pleaded in the review application is also
not supported by any documents.
7. We do not find any case made out for reviewing the judgment dated 10 th
February, 2014.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
JULY 08, 2014
pp
