Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Banwari Lal Shyam Lal And Others vs Haryana State Agricultural Marketing ... on 5 July, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RA No.219 of 2013 in
CWP No.8475 of 1987 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
RA No.219 of 2013 in
CWP No.8475 of 1987
Date of decision July 5, 2013
M/s Banwari Lal Shyam Lal and others
....... Petitioner
Versus
Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula and
others
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
for the applicant.
****
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The application is filed by the respondent who seeks for review on the ground that in LPA filed against this judgment the Court had given him permission to apply to this Court to review. I have seen the order. It is a case where the appellant has sought to assail the judgment of this Court and the plaintiff himself has sought liberty to approach this Court for a review. The appellate court has not denied to him such an approach and that should be understood merely as giving an occasion for the applicant to make out a case before this Court. The mere fact that the Division Bench has allowed the application to approach this Court ought not to be misconstrued as a license to an applicant to plead that the judgment is bound to be reviewed. I sought the counsel to assist me as to how the case would require to be reviewed and show to me the parameters that are available under Order 47 CPC for recalling the order.
2. The inability to file some documents or RA No.219 of 2013 in CWP No.8475 of 1987 2 evidence which a party did not know existed at the time when the order was passed could have been a ground, apart from error apparent on the face of record. The petitioner is unable to substantiate any one of the grounds under Order 47. The counsel further argues that the court has allowed for the petitioner's case to be considered for allotment of plots in the new Mandi without property adverting to the fact that the petitioner Nos.1,3 and 5 were only allottees in the Anaj Mandi and they were not occupants in the old Mandi. It is further contended that the petitioner Nos.2 and 4 were not the occupiers in the old Mandi at all but they were occupiers outside the Mandi and hence they were not entitled to any allotment. If the order is prone to attach for an improper consideration of evidence or there exists a fallibility in reasoning, the appropriate remedy for the applicant was only to point out such fallibility in the appellate court and not points which were never urged before the court at any time. I find no ground that the judgment is susceptible for review within the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1.
3. The application is without merit and it is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 5, 2013 archana