Surendra Nath Nodal High vs Jayanti Kandi & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 11945 Ori

                                  1




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK


                     RVWPET No.132 OF 2021

Surendra Nath Nodal High               .....               Petitioners
School, Managing
Committee & Anr.
                                                  Mr. Pronoy Mohanty,
                                                             Advocate
                               Vs.
Jayanti Kandi & Ors.                   .....           Opposite party




            CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                       ORDER

22.11.2021

Order No. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, who was not a party to W.P.(C) No.19714 of 2018, which has been disposed of on 02.06.2021, has filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 02.06.2021, by which this Court has disposed of the said writ petition on the basis of misleading and misconceived submission that the same is a covered case in the common judgment dated 04.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.27401 of 2020 and batch.

4. Mr. Pronoy Mohanty, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the petitioner-School Management was not made a party to W.P.(C) No.19714 of 2018, which has been disposed of vide order dated 02.06.2021 on the basis of submission made that the said case is a covered case in the common judgment dated 04.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.27401 of 2020 and batch. He has brought to the attention of this Court paragraph-19 of the judgment in Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, (2019) 18 SCC 586, wherein the apex Court held as follows:

"19. Reverting to the question of whether Union of India has locus to file the review petition, we must immediately advert to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") which, inter alia, postulates that "any person considering himself aggrieved" would have locus to file a review petition. Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure relates the position that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court exercises review jurisdiction by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution which predicates that the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Besides, the Supreme Court has framed Rules to govern review petitions. Notably, neither Order XLVII of Code Civil Procedure nor Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect."

5. In view of such position, the review petition filed at the instance of the petitioner is maintainable.

6. Issue notice to opposite parties no.1 to 4 on the

question of review of the order dated 02.06.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.19714 of 2018 by Registered Post with A.D. fixing a short returnable date, requisites for which shall be filed within three days.

Alok DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.