Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shri Som Dutt And Another vs Shri Krishanu Ram And Others on 18 March, 2015

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
                                                    Review Petition No.23 of 2015




                                                                                  .
                                                    Date of decision : 18.3.2015





        Shri Som Dutt and another                                               ...Petitioners

                                            Versus





        Shri Krishanu Ram and others                                       ... Respondents.

        Coram:
        The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
        Whether approved for reporting?1 No.





        For the Petitioners             :   Mr. G.D. Verma Sr. Advocate
                                            with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate.
        For the Respondents             :   Mr. Purshotam, Advocate, vice,
                                            Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate for R-1.

                                            Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate for

                                            R-5 (i) and R- 5(ii).

        Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral)

CMP(M) No.882/2014 For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 3 days in filing the petition, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Petition be registered. Application stands disposed of.

Review Petition No.23/2015

I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench. In my considered view, there is neither any Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:21 :::HCHP

...2...

mistake nor error apparent on the face of record or sufficient reason so as to take in its sweep, a ground .

analogous to those specified in the statutory provisions.

There is no material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermining its soundness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Review is not an appeal in disguise entitling the party to be reheard, simply because the party wants a decision to be otherwise.

2. r Keeping in view the principles laid down in Kamlesh Verma versus Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC 320; and Akhilesh Yadav versus Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, (2013) 2 SCC 1, present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.





                                                           (Sanjay Karol),





    March 18, 2015    (KS)                                     Judge.





                                                ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:48:21 :::HCHP