SHANTILAL MANGANLAL AND ANR.versusCHUNNILAL RANCHODDAS THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

-·--                                                                                                  205


                                SHANTILAL MANGANLAL AND ANR.                                            A
                                                         v.
                   CHUNNILAL RANCHODDAS THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.




--
                                                24th July, 1984
                                                                                                        B
                               [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND D.P. MADON, JJ.]

                       Petition for Special Leave and Petltion for Review-If the petition filed
                 without giving the grounds of appeal they will be dismi.•·sed a.1 frivolous and an
                 abuse of the process of law-Order XVI and XL of Supreme Court Rules
                 1966-Duty of advocate. to court in filing pet/lions•                                   c
       .,,...           An app1ication for review against the order of dismissal of the
                 Special Leave Petition dated 9.12.83 was filled without           disclosing any
                 ground fur review. It \Vas averred that the petition was being filed so as
                 to be within the limitation prescribed under Order XL of the Supreme
                 Court Rules and that further grounds would be filed if advised. However1               D
                 nothing was done though more than six months had elapsed by the da'.e
                 of bearing.

                      Dismissing the petition, expressing its deep dissatisfaction and anguish

 -              with   the indiscriminate manner in which petitions for Special LcJ.ve
                and petitions for Review were being filed in the Supreme Court, [206A]                  E

                        HELD :    The application for review was nothing short of an abuse
                'of the process of the court, a waste of the tl_me of the Court and was
                entirely frivolous.

                        CIVIL APPELLATE. JURISDICTION: Review Petition No. 249 of                       F
                1984.
                                                       In
                        Special Leace Petition (C) No. 13618 of 1983
                                                                                                       G
                        CHAMBER MATTER-By Circulation

                        The Order of the Court was delivered by

                        CHINNAPPA REDDY, J,        This~pplication      for Review is nothin~          If
    206                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (I 985] I S.C.R.

A    short of an abuse of the process of the Court and a waste of the time
     of this Court, time which has now become so dear and prec'ous
     because of the daily mounting arrears. No ground for seeking a
     review ismen tioned or even hinted at in the petition. In the first para-
     graph 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
B    dismiss the above Snecial 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. ft is submitted that since
    ·the order is unsustainable in view of the facts and circumstances of
     the ca,e, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to review the order".
c    Jn the second paragrnph 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.
D
    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
E
    petitions for review are being filed. The present application is
     entirely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed.

    S.R.                                                 Petition dismissed.