Mr. A. Bhowmik vs None
2021 Latest Caselaw 1084 Tri

                            Page 1 of 3


                    HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                     Review Pet. No.39 of 2021

For Petitioner(s)      :    Mr. A. Bhowmik, Adv.

For Respondent(s)      :    None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Order

11/11/2021 Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the

review petitioners, Food Corporation of India and others.

This review petition arises from the judgment and order

dated 26.02.2021 delivered in RFA No.14 of 2016 by this court.

According to the review petitioners, their counter-claim which

was filed in response to the Money Suit filed by the respondent

was dismissed by the judgment dated 11.05.2016. Against the

judgment dated 11.05.2016 delivered in the suit, the

respondent preferred an appeal before this court. The said

appeal was registered as RFA No.14 of 2016.

The review-petitioners have admitted that no appeal was

filed by them against the said judgment dismissing their

counter-claim. The other appeal filed by the respondents being

RFA 14 of 2016 was allowed by this court. Against the judgment

dated 26.02.2021, by which the said appeal being RFA No.14 of

2016 was allowed, the review-petitioners filed a Special Leave

Petition seeking leave to appeal against the said judgment.

According to the review-petitioners, the prayer for leave was

refused by the apex court by the order dated 05.07.2021

delivered in SLP(C)No.8202 of 2021.

Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the review-

petitioners has submitted that the said SLP was dismissed by a

non-speaking order. Therefore, that cannot create any embargo

for the review-petitioners seeking review of the judgment dated

26.02.2021. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has particularly

referred to us the grounds (A), (B) and (C) of the memorandum

of appeal. In the ground (A), the review-petitioners have

asserted that since the Special Leave Petition has been

dismissed by a non-speaking order, review from the judgment

dated 26.02.2021 is permissible.

The ground (B) has been formed on similar ground. It has

been asserted in the ground (A) that the doctrine of merger

cannot be applied for denying review. Further, the reference

has been made to three decisions of the apex court in the

ground(C) to contend that the review petition would be

maintainable even if the Special Leave Petition is dismissed by a

non-speaking order.

In the context of this review petition, we find that those

grounds cannot have much relevance, inasmuch as the counter-

claim of the review-petitioners was dismissed as the review-

petitioners did not support their pleading in the counter-claim

by adducing any evidence. Even in the appellate stage, they did

not take any endeavour either to push forward cross-objection

or take advantage of Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC.

Thus, this review-petition does not have any merit and

accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall

be no cost as we have not issued notice to the respondents and

this order of dismissal is passed at the threshold.

The order of the review be placed in the original records of

RFA 14 of 2011.

          JUDGE                                            JUDGE




Moumita