Shiv Charan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
Lokeshwar Singh Pant
Judgment Date: 2006-11-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shiv Charan Singh

Respondents

State of Punjab and Others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S.K. Upadhyay
• Indra Makwana

Counsels for Respondents

• Sarup Singh
• R.K. Pandey
• A.K. Sinha

Case Synopsis & Summary

Shiv Charan Singh challenged a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court's dismissal of his writ petition's review. The writ petition (CWP No.17615/2001) sought relief in respect of the punishment and deprivation of retiral benefits after over a decade of service. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 12 August 2005, noting the petitioner’s absence for about three years and describing him as a habitual absentee, thereby denying relief. At a prior stage, on 6 November 2001, counsel for the petitioner asserted that he had ten years of service and had been deprived of retiral benefits in view of the impugned order. The appellant argued that the High Court had misapprehended the facts and that the review petition should have been entertained. The respondents contended that the review petition was not maintainable. The Supreme Court, granting leave, observed that the challenge in this appeal is to the order passed in the review application and that such an appeal is not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC. It noted that the basic order may still be challenged by a Special Leave Petition. The Court cited Shanker Motiram Nale and Susel Finance & Leasing Co. and M.N. Haider, stating the principle that appeals from review orders lie only in exceptional circumstances. The appeal was dismissed. No costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Constitution of India, Article 136Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 Rule 7

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Appeals against an order passed on a review under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC are not maintainable; bar on appeals from review orders (Order 47 Rule 7 CPC).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant argued that the High Court misapprehended the factual position and that the materials before the court showed a need to reconsider the writ petition’s quantum of punishment and the deprivation of retiral benefits. He emphasized that the review petition should have been entertainable, and cited prior precedents to establish the entitlement to a review under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC in appropriate circumstances. The challenge before the Supreme Court was confined to the legality of the High Court’s review-order dismissal, not the underlying writ decision.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the High Court’s order dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-entertainment of the review petition is correct and on lawful grounds. They argued that an appeal against a review order is barred by Order 47 Rule 7 CPC, and therefore the present appeal is incompetent. They asserted that the basic writ petition order remains outside the ambit of challenge through this appeal, though a Special Leave Petition could be pursued against the underlying order in accordance with law.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajpur	(1994) 2 SCC 753	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that an appeal against a High Court order rejecting a review is incompetent under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC.
Susel Finance & Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors.	(2004) 13 SCC 675	Positive	Reiterates the principle regarding non-maintainability of appeals from review orders under Order 47 Rule 7 CPC.
M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors.	(2004) 13 SCC 677	Positive	Reiterates the same rule on review-order appeals as a controlling principle.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

SHIV CHARAN SINGH _v._ STA TE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. NOVEMBER 17, 2006 [ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] _Constitution of India, 1950:_ _Article 136-Appeal challenging order of High Court rejecting application for review-Held, not maintainable-Code of Civil Procedure,_ C _1908 -Order 47, Rule_ 7. The present appeal was filed challenging the order of a Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the application for review of an order passed in a writ petition. D ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Challenge in this appeal is only to the order passed in the review application. Such an appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is dismissed. However, this order shall not stand in the way of consideration of the Special leave Petition stated to have been filed separately challenging the basic order. E (144-F; 145-C] _Shanker Motiram Nale_ v. _Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajpur,_ (1994) 2 SCC 753; _Susel Finance & Leasing Co._ v. _M Lata and Ors.,_ (20041 3 SCC 675 and _MN. Haider and Ors._ v. _Kendriya Vidyplaya Sangathan and Ors.,_ (20041 13 sec 677, relied on. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.5023 of2006. From the final Judgment and Order datedJ2--8-2p0_5 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No.85/2005 in C.W.P. No.17615/2001. G S.K. Upadhyay and Indra Makwana for the Appellant. Sarup Singh, R.K. Pandey and A.K. Sinha for the Respondents. .. H 143 144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **ARIJIT** PASA Y AT, **J.** Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application for review filed B in respect of the order in CWP No. l 7615 of 200 l which was dismissed on 12.8.2005. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner was absent for about three years. The High Court found the writ petitioner to be a habitual absentee and, therefore, felt that he did not deserve any relief in the quantum of punishment. It is to be noted that while issuing C notice on 6.11.200 **l** the following order had been passed by the High Court: ## **D** "Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments stated that the petitioner has put in ten years of service and he has been deprived of the retiral benefits in view of the impugned order. He confines the prayer in the writ petition only to the quantum of punishment." Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court is not right in holding that the review petition was not entertainable in view of the materials which were placed for consideration. Those materials clearly show that the High Court did not take note of the correct factual position while E dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has rightly held that the review petition was not maintainable. Challenge ·in this appeal is only to the order passed in the review _p_ application. Such an appeal is not maintainable. In _Shanker Motiram Nale_ v. _Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput,_ [1994] 2 sec 753 it was observed as follows: G "The appeal is obviously incompetent. It is against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the application for review of a judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge, who seems to have retired in the meantime. It is not against the basic judgment. Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an appeal against the order of the court rejecting the review. On this basis, we reject the appeal. No cost. ## **H** 145 SHIV CHARAN SINGH _v._ STATEOFPUNJAB [PASAYAT,J.] A B I.A. No. l/93 (Application for substitution). No orders are necessary in view of the rejection of the appeal." The position has been re-iterated in _Suseel Finance & leasing Co._ v. _M. lata and Ors.,_ [2004] 13 SCC 675 and _M.N. Haider and Ors._ v. _Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors.,_ [2004] 13 sec 677. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the basic order dated 20.8.2004 passed by the High Court has been challenged by filing a special leave petition on 9.10.2006. However, dismissal of this present appeal shall not stand on the way of consideration of the Special Leave Petition stated to have been filed on 9.10.2006. The same shall be dealt with in C accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.