TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 720
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....just perused. A brief note given by Sri Singh, learned counsel in support of review petition is clearly reiteration of various facts and details in the light of evidence which is the part of counter affidavit filed in the writ petitions and thus they are reiteration of the facts and details on which reappraisal of re hearing appears to be an effort which for the reasons indicated in this order and within limited scope of consideration may not be permissible. 4. Issue in the writ petition was about validity and propriety of the auction sale of three houses i.e. House no. 16/20, 16/20-B and 16/20-C situated in Civil Lines, Kanpur which were auctioned for small dues of the sales tax department for a total amount of Rs.1,61,000/-. After lengthy arguments from both sides, writ petition was allowed and auction proceedings were quashed and the respondent- auction purchaser was directed to hand over possession of the properties in question within a period of six months to the petitioner and bid amount alongwith interest was directed to be returned to the auction-purchaser, within a period of six weeks from the date of moving application as indicated in the judgment. The judgment of this C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bservation of the Apex Court in this regard as quoted in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) is quoted. "The record of appeal indicates that Sri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate on Record when appeal was heard and decided don merits. The Review petition has been filed by Sri Prabir Chowdhury 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 it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not 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. Filling 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it may be filed by a new advocate but that too after obtaining no objection from earlier counsel. If a case is to be argued on the same set of facts by change of counsel, at several occasion, it may be possible that with imminence of the counsel, a new dimension to the argument may come on same set of facts. Skill in the argument and advocacy is to vary always from counsel to counsel. Although earlier two senior advocates of this Court namely Sri R.N. Singh and Sri V.B. Upadhyaya argued the matters on behalf of applicant at length with full vehemence at their command but now Sri V.B. Singh, learned senior advocate wants to argue the matter in his own way by placing the same record and same pleadings. On the facts of present case, this Court is of the view that filing of review petition on the ground so taken in the application cannot be said to be just and proper so as to entitle Sri Saran, learned advocate and Sri Singh learned senior advocate to file and argue this review petition. 11. Be as it may, as the matter has come before this Court by way of this review petition and there is an issue between the parties that whether after dismissal of S.L.P. by the Apex Court against th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial leave to appeal while disposing of a petition for the purpose. Mere rejection of a special leave petition does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court, tribunal or forum whose order forms the subject matter of petition for special leave to review its own order if grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction are shown to exist. Where the order rejecting an SLP is a speaking order, that is where reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the petition for special leave and are stated in the order still the order remains the one rejecting prayer for the grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner has been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Here also the doctrine of merger would not apply. But the law stated or declared by this Court in its order shall attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution. The reasons assigned by this Court in its order expressing its adjudication (expressly or by necessary implication) on point of fact or law shall take away the jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal or authority to express any opinion in conflict with or in departure from the view taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order." 14. A reading of the aforesaid makes it clear that review petition can be filed if from the discovery of new materials which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other sufficient reason. Here is not the case where review petition has been filed by discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge or party or could not be produced at the time when the judgment was given. Here is the case where the applicant wants review of the order on the ground that on the facts and evidence, conclusion arrived at by thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, that may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." 16. In respect to error apparent in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satyanarain Laxminarain Hegde vs. Mallikarun Bhavanappa Tirumale, reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, following observation was made: "An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an erro....