K.M.Tomar vs State Bank Of India & Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 2221 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.791/2000

%                                                        10th April, 2018

K.M.TOMAR                                                  ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. K.C. Mittal, Advocate with
                                         Ms Ruchika Mittal, Advocate,
                                         Mr. Yugansh Mittal, Advocate
                                         and Mr. Amit Prakash,
                                         Advocate.
                          Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.                            ..... Respondents

                  Through:               Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.13454/2018 (for condonation of delay in filing review petition)

1. Though there is no ground for condonation of delay,

however in the interest of justice, delay of 365 days in filing the

review petition is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

Review Petition No.147/2018

2. Some litigants, it appears, are never satisfied. This is

being stated by this Court because filing of review petition has now

become almost a habit with respect to certain litigants. Not only filing

of the review petition becoming a habit for certain litigants, the same

is also not filed in terms of the rules of this Court, because a review

petition must be accompanied by a certificate of the lawyer that the

review petition is justified, however lawyers are routinely giving

certificate that the review petition should be filed. Giving of

certificates by lawyers in a routine manner defeats the whole purpose

of trusting the lawyers that they would only certify a case being fit for

review only when it clearly falls within the scope of review

jurisdiction. In the present case, it is noted that even the certificate of

lawyer is not filed but the case is said to be a fit case for review only

in terms of para 5 of the review petition.

3. Another aspect required to be noted is that the impugned

judgment, which is sought to be reviewed by the present petition,

states in its very few lines itself that the review petition was argued

only on one point and which was of the petitioner not being given

notice by the disciplinary authority for setting aside the findings of the

enquiry officer without issuing of first a show cause notice to the

petitioner. This has been found to be factually incorrect and reference

in the impugned judgment has been made to the order of the

disciplinary authority dated 30.12.1991 that the entire findings of the

enquiry officer as a whole are upheld and which findings were in

partly on some charges in favour of the petitioner and in part for some

charges against the petitioner i.e both findings which were in favour

and against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority were accepted

and it is not that on findings of the enquiry officer in favour of the

petitioner the same were set aside by the disciplinary authority, and in

which case there was no need of show cause notice being given to the

petitioner before the disciplinary authority passed its order and as was

contended on behalf of the petitioner at the time of arguments on the

writ petition.

4. The scope of the review jurisdiction is confined to an

error apparent on the face of the record. This is also stated by the

petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court on 3.11.2017 for

withdrawing of LPA No.83/2017 filed against the impugned judgment

dated 8.12.2016, however, what is sought to be argued through the

review petition is once again the issue of merits and which is not

within the scope of review jurisdiction.

5. A judgment being 'wrong' has two connotations. One is

'wrong' for the purpose of review petition and another 'wrong' is that

the judgment is wrong for the purpose of exercising appellate

jurisdiction by the appellate court. What is within the realm of

jurisdiction of an appellate court for holding the judgment to be

wrong/illegal for being set aside is not within the scope of review

petition and which lies only if there is some ex-facie and complete

illegality in the impugned judgment i.e an error apparent on face of

record. There is no such ex-facie error which is pointed out, and as

already stated above, the writ petition is sought to be re-argued on

merits as if this Court has to sit in appeal over its own judgment.

6. In view of the above position this review petition is not

only not maintainable, but also the same is also without merits, and is

also an abuse of process of the Court. This review petition is therefore

dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- and which costs shall be paid by

the review petitioner to the respondent no.1 within a period of four

weeks from today.

APRIL 10, 2018                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne