Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review Petition No. 3 of 1974, decided on 13th February 1975.
(On appeal from the judgment of this Court made on the 7th of November 1973, in Civil Appeal No. 190 of 1969).
O. XXVI‑Review‑Plea that judgment ‑of Supreme Court being silent about direction to first appellate Court for disposal of appeal lodged by petitioner needed review‑Supreme Court not in any manner having interfered with remand order made by High Court, ground urged for review, held, misconceived.
__ O. XXVI‑Review‑ Supreme Court only dealing with maintain ability of suit and saying nothing on merits of case, contention that its judgment is likely to be misconstrued in respondent's favour, held, misconceived.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 13th February 1975.
This petition seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated the 7th of November 1973, whereby Civil' Appeal No. 190 of 1969 was dismissed.
The learned Advocate‑on‑Record as well as the counsel for the petitioner are both absent, even though notice for the hearing of this petition had been sent to the learned Advocate‑on‑Record in accordance with the rules of the Court. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed for non -prosecution.
Even on merits, we do not find any substance in this petition.
The grounds urged for review are as follows :‑
(a) That the judgment of this Court is silent about the directions to the first appellate Court for the disposal of the appeal lodged by the petitioner in that Court ; and
(b) That the judgment dated 7‑11‑1973 is likely to be misconstrued in favour of the respondent as one amounting to a total acceptance of respondent's claim resulting in an executable decree for possession of the land in suit in favour of the respondent.
In second appeal, the High Court had merely decided the question whether the sale in favour of the petitioner was pre‑emptible or not in view of the provisions contained in Act XII of 1957 and certain sections of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Having answered the question in favour of pre‑emptibility, the High Court had remanded the appeal to the learned District Judge for a decision on merits. By our judgment dated the 7th of November 1973, we had upheld the view taken by the High Court, with the result that the first appeal lodged by the petitioner has still to be heard by the learned District Judge as remanded by the High Court. The first ground urged for review of our judgment is, therefore, misconceived, as we have not in any manner interfered with the remand order made by the High Court.
Similar is the case with the second ground, as we have said nothing on the merits of the pre‑emption suit pending between the parties. We have only dealt with the question of the maintainability of the suit filed by the respondent. Such being the case, there is no basis for the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that the judgment of this Court dated the 7th of November 1973 is likely to be misconstrued as a decision on merit in favour of the respondent.
We would accordingly dismiss this petition, making it clear that the first appeal lodged by the petitioner has still to be decided by the learned District Judge concerned in accordance with the remand order made by the High Court.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer