Late Chachijti Devi vs Mehta Nirodi Family Trust ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4204 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013901]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 32/2018

1. Late Chachijti Devi, W/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Through Legal Heris-

2. Rikhabraj Mohnot S/o Shri Late Prem Raj Ji Mahnot, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Mehta Nirodi Family Trust, Diwan House Through Its Chief Trustee Shri Shyam Lalwani S/o Shri Manak Chand Ji Lalwani, R/o Naya Bass, Manak Chowk Jodhpur.

2. Ajitraj Mohnot S/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mahnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

3. Surendra Kumar Mohnot S/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

4. Rajendra Kumar Mohnot S/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

5. Urvesh S/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

6. Usha D/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

7. Lila D/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

8. Nirmala D/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

9. Kanta D/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

10. Aruna D/o Late Shri Prem Raj Ji Mohnot, Diwan House, Tambakoo Ki Gali, Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s)         :     -





 [2023/RJJD/013901]                   (2 of 4)                    [CRW-32/2018]


                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Order

08/05/2023

1. The present review application has been filed seeking review

of the order dated 12.04.2018 passed by this Court.

2. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners made a

number of submissions.

3. While observing that the grounds which have been raised do

not fall in the ambit of apparent error on the face of record, it is to

be noted that the review application has been filed not by the

same counsel who argued the mater, when the first appeal was

heard and disposed of, (Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat and Mr. Shankar

Singh).

4. The contentions which have been raised in the review

petition are supported by an affidavit of the appellant No.2 -

'Rikhabraj Mohnot', who does not claim himself to be the present,

when the order under consideration was passed.

5. In the opinion of this Court, the present review application

filed through another counsel is not maintainable in light of

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in (1997) 9 SCC 736 :

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs. N. Raju Reddiar.

"When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter

[2023/RJJD/013901] (3 of 4) [CRW-32/2018]

again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the Advocate-on- Record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar, which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No.2670 of 1996 in CA No.1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K.

Ramaswamy, J., was a member, had held as under:

'The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhary who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate- on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the 'No Objection Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the 'No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits.

On these grounds, we dismiss the review petition."

[2023/RJJD/013901] (4 of 4) [CRW-32/2018]

2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the Advocate-on-Record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice."

6. In view of the above judgment and also in view of what has

been noted above, this Court finds no reason to entertain the

review application. The same is hereby dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 6-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)