R. Subba Rao, Registrar (Judicial), J.
1. Notice under Order 10 Rules 6(3) and (4) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, has been issued to the Advocate returnable on November 24, 1981. Counsel for the petitioners Mr V.J. Francis has prayed that the matter may be taken up today itself. Hence the matter has been taken up today.
2. The appeal abovementioned was heard by the Court and after hearing the counsel for the appellants and counsel for the respondent the Court delivered judgment on April 3, 1981 dismissing the appeal. The appellant has filed on April 28, 1981 an application for rehearing of the appeal in which he inter alia prayed that the judgment of this Court may be rescinded and the parties may be permitted to make submissions through counsel. Counsel has been informed that since the appeal has been disposed of after hearing the counsel for the parties, no application for rehearing lies in the matter and he may, if so, be advised to file a review petition under the Rules of the Court. He has not cured the defect but he has filed a letter stating that the application may be listed before the Court and that the Registry may leave the matter to the Court to decide whether the circumstances mentioned by him in the petition are enough to give to appellants a fair opportunity to place the case on merits. He has further stated in the letter that the Registry will please not dispose of the application without affording an opportunity to the appellants to place their case before the Court by oral arguments which is not available to them in a review petition.
3. Under Order 10 Rules 6(3) where a document is found to be defective, it shall be placed before the Registrar after notice to the party filing the same. The Registrar may by an order decline to receive the document if, in his opinion, the mandatory requirements of the Rules are not satisfied. Under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, the Registrar may refuse to receive a petition other than a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause.
4. In the instant case since the appeal has been disposed of after hearing the parties, the only course left to the party is to file a review petition under Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules. It is seen from the letter of counsel that since oral arguments are not available in a review petition, he has filed this petition. This clearly shows that counsel knowing fully well that only a review petition lies in the matter, has filed this application to bypass the Rules. Learned counsel refers to Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules. This Order refers to the inherent powers of the Court but those powers come into play when some mandatory provisions are complied with. In this case counsel has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Supreme Court Rules. Secondly the petition does not disclose any reasonable cause of action since his appeal has been disposed of finally after hearing counsel for the appellants.
5. In view of the above, I decline to register the application for rehearing filed by the appellant on April 28, 1981.