Dharam Deo Narayan Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors
- SCC(2009) 12 SCC 398
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review petition challenging an order passed in a Letter Patent Appeal may be reconsidered and remitted to the High Court for reconsideration where new documentary evidence (such as Government circulars and instructions) was produced with the review petition but was not considered on the merits by the High Court, notwithstanding that formal grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not have been strictly satisfied, where doing so is necessary to secure complete justice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Dharam Deo Narayan Singh ..........Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. ........Respondents
ORDER
Leave granted.
2) The appellant calls in question the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed in L.P.A. No. 257 of 2003 dated 3/10.8.2004 and the order passed in Civil Review No. 100 of 2004 dated 4/6.12.2005.
3) The appellant aggrieved by the rejection of the claim by the learned Single Judge in counting the service rendered by him earlier in the co- operative institution, had filed Letter Patent Appeal before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 257 of 2003. By the impugned order dated 3/10.8.2004, the court has rejected the appeal.
1
After such rejection, the appellant had filed Review Petition No. 100 of 2004. Alongwith the Petition, the appellant had produced circular instruction issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, New Delhi and other documents, which according to him, would support his claim made before the authorities and also before the court.
4) The Review Petition was rejected by the court on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, review of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 257 of 2003 was not called for.
5) The grievance of the appellant and his counsel before us, is that; if the documents produced by the appellant had been considered by the court, it would have certainly helped the appellant to claim higher pensionary benefits.
6) The learned counsel for the respondents justifies the impugned order.
7) Having considered the rival claims of the parties, in our view, in order to do complete justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the High Court in Civil Review Petition without going into niceties of order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.
2
8) Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the High Court in Civil Review Petition No. 100 of 2004 dated 4/6.12.2005 and direct the High Court to reconsider the Review Petition filed by the appellant by taking on record the circulars and other documents filed along with the Review Petition as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months. We hasten to add, we have not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
.......................................J.
[ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]
.......................................J.
[ H.L. DATTU ]
New Delhi, April 17, 2009.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free