Skip to content


Suraj Bhan Goel and ors. Vs. Dhapo Devi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revision Appeal No. 85 of 1969
Judge
Reported in5(1969)DLT638
ActsConstitution of India - Article 227; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 151
AppellantSuraj Bhan Goel and ors.
RespondentDhapo Devi and ors.
Advocates: H.S. Dhir and; B.S. Baggi, Advs
Excerpt:
.....tried to take me through the proceedings for the purpose of showing that there was neither any equitable nor just ground for giving another opportunity to the petitioner in this court for leading evidence before the tribunal i have nto considered it proper to go into these details because under article 227 of the constitution i cannto go into the details like an appellate court. cannto be extended so as to include power of revi wing its own earlier orders whenever it considers them to be either unjust or erroneous, for finality must be held to attach to all judicial and quasi-judicial orders during the trials of controversies like the present......oi the application for review. after considering the various dates of the proceedings before the learned tribunal it was observed that it could nto be said that the evidence of the respondents before tribunal was closed without giving enough opportunity to them or that the order dated 22nd may, 1968, which was sought to be reviewed, was against law or there was any legal mistake in that order. but this apart, no new fact was stated to have come to light as the result where of some further evidence was necessary to be led. there being no specific provision permitting review the learned tribunal disallowed the prayer. (3) although the learned counsel for the respondents has tried to take me through the proceedings for the purpose of showing that there was neither any equitable nor just.....
Judgment:

I.D. Dua, C.J.

(1) This revision has been presented under section 115, Civil P. C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The competency of the revision under section 115, Civil P. C. is nto pressed and the petitioners' counsel has tried to justify his claim to interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2) I he impugned order merely declined an application for reviewing an earlier order mAde by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The grounds on which the prayer for review was disallowed are both on the merits and on the competency oi the application for review. After considering the various dates of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal it was observed that it could nto be said that the evidence of the respondents before Tribunal was closed without giving enough opportunity to them or that the order dated 22nd May, 1968, which was sought to be reviewed, was against law or there was any legal mistake in that order. But this apart, no new fact was stated to have come to light as the result where of some further evidence was necessary to be led. There being no specific provision permitting review the learned Tribunal disallowed the prayer.

(3) Although the learned counsel for the respondents has tried to take me through the proceedings for the purpose of showing that there was neither any equitable nor just ground for giving another opportunity to the petitioner in this Court for leading evidence before the Tribunal I have nto considered it proper to go into these details because under Article 227 of the Constitution I cannto go into the details like an appellate court. It is conceded by the petitioners' learned counsel that there was no provision of law applicable to the present case which permits review of an earlier order by the Tribunal. If that is so then I am afraid, the impugned order cannto be held to be so greviously infirm as to justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution which has to be sparingly used in case of emergency and gross violation of law leading to grave infustice. It cannto be invoked for permitting the parties to fill 'a lacunae in the defense of their cases where they have been guilty of lapses or omissions.

(4) A passing reference has been made by Shri Dhir to a decision of the Punjab High Court in Jagir Singb V. Settlement Commissioner but the ratio of that case has little to do with the present controversy. Inherent power of a Court or a Tribunal under section 151, Civ:IP.C. cannto be extended so as to include power of revi wing its own earlier orders whenever it considers them to be either unjust or erroneous, for finality must be held to attach to all judicial and quasi-judicial orders during the trials of controversies like the present.

(5) For the reasons foregoing, I am unable to find any cogent ground for interference with the impugned order under section 115 Civil P. C. or Article 227 of the Constitution This petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs.

(6) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 12th May, 1969. when a short date would be given for further proceedings in accordance with law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //