Shantilal Manganlal And Anr. vs Chunnilal Ranchoddas Through Lrs. And Ors.
- SCC(1984) 4 SCC 236
- Neutral1984 INSC 128
- AIRAIR 1984 SC 1578
- SCR[1985] 1 SCR 205
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A petition for review, or a petition for special leave to appeal, filed without disclosing any ground whatsoever and accompanied only by an undertaking to file grounds later if advised, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court and is frivolous and liable to be dismissed, particularly where the undertaking remains unredeemed after a substantial period of time has elapsed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 249 of 1984.
In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13618 of 1983 CHAMBER MATTER-By Circulation The order of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This application for Review is nothing 206 short of an abuse of the process of the Court and waste of the time of this Court, time which has now become so dear and precious because of the daily mounting arrears. No ground for seeking a review is mentioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first paragraph of the petition it is stated "This is an application for Review of the order dated 9.12.83, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismiss the above Special Leave to Appeal (Civil). The said order discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as will be clear from perusal of the various grounds and facts mentioned in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal. It is submitted that since the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the order". In the second paragraph we are told that no detailed grounds have been taken (though in point of fact not a single ground is even mentioned) as limitation is about to expire and "If so advised, further set of grounds would be submitted for the consideration of the Hon'ble Court" The petition was filed on 9.1.1984 and nothing has been done though more than six months have passed since then. The offer to file detailed grounds remains an unredeemed promise. Possibly he was advised to file no further grounds as there was none to be submitted. Good words were not to be thrown away after bad. To that extent, we may consider ourselves spared. We must however express our deep dissatisfaction and anguish with the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for special leave and petitions for review are being filed. The present application is entirely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.
S. R. Petition dismissed. 207
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