KONDOPANTversusARJUNA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1995 INSC 566
- Decided
- 12 September 1995
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
A review petition that raises only additional grounds, without disputing the original order, is not a valid ground for review and must be dismissed.
Summary
In a review petition arising from a civil appeal, the Bombay High Court had earlier declared the respondent a surplus holder under the Land Ceiling Act and allowed him to file a review if he was later found to be within the ceiling limit. The review petition was filed, but it raised new grounds that were not part of the original appeal. The Court observed that the declaration of surplus holder was not contested in the petition and that the petition merely introduced additional grounds. Since the petition did not challenge the original order and only sought review on fresh grounds, the Court held that such grounds do not constitute a valid basis for review. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a review petition can be entertained on additional grounds not raised in the original appeal when the original order is not disputed
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A KONDOPANT
v.
ARJUNA AND ORS. ....
SEPTEMBER 12, 1995
B fK. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Review Petition-Raising of additional grounds in-Held not a ground
for review.
While disposing the appeal this Court stated that the declaration of
c the respondent, the petitioner herein, as a surplus holder under the Land
Ceiling Act was correct and he may file a review petition- in case he was
found to be within the ceiling limit.
Dismissing the review petition, this Court
D HELD : The act of declaration as a surplus holder is not disputed
in the review petition. But additional grounds have been raised. Therefore,
that would not be a ground to review the order. [583-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 1347
E of 1995.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 2446 of 1978
From the .Judgment and Order dated 11.7.78 of the Bombay High
F
Court in F.A. NO. 155 of 1971.
S.V. Desh Pande for the Petitioner/Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G In our order dated May 2, 1995 we had stated that Shri Parekh,
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, had raised ground No. 5 and
also produced a certified copy to show that the respondent was declared
to be a surplus holder and he was in excess of the land under the Land
Ceiling Act. The surplus land was assigned to· the appellants. Since counsel
H for the review petitioner, viz., the respondents in the S.L.P., had reported
582
KONDOP ANT v. ARJUNA 583
that in spite of their contracting the party, they could not get any response A
from them, we had stated that the declaration of the respondents as a
surplus holder is correct and in case he was found to be within the ceiling
limit, liberty was given to him to file review petition within a period of two
months from today. The said fact is not disputed in the review petition. But
additional grounds have now got to be raised. Therefore, that would not
B.
be a ground for us to review the order.
The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A. Petition dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.