http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5023 of 2006

PETITIONER: Shiv Charan Singh                                                

RESPONDENT: The State of Punjab & Ors.                               

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26765 of 2005)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.  

       Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  dismissing the application for review filed in respect of the  order in CWP No.17615 of 2001 which was dismissed on  12.8.2005. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground  that the writ petitioner was absent for about three years. The  High Court found the writ petitioner to be a habitual absentee  and, therefore, felt that he did not deserve any relief in the  quantum of punishment.  It is to be noted that while issuing  notice on 6.11.2001 the following order had been passed by  the High Court:

       "Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time  of arguments stated that the petitioner has put  in ten years of service and he has been deprived  of the retiral benefits in view of the impugned  order. He confines the prayer in the writ petition  only to the quantum of punishment."

       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  High Court is not right in holding that the review petition was  not entertainable in view of the materials which were placed  for consideration. Those materials clearly show that the High  Court did not take note of the correct factual position while  dismissing the writ petition.  

       Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the  High Court has rightly held that the review petition was not  maintainable.  

       Challenge in this appeal is only to the order passed in the  review application.  Such an appeal is not maintainable.

 In Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing  Rajput [(1994) 2 SCC 753] it was observed as follows:

"The appeal is obviously incompetent.  It  is against an order of a Division Bench of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

High Court rejecting the application for review  of a judgment and decree passed by a learned  Single Judge, who seems to have retired in the  meantime. It is not against the basic  judgment. Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an  appeal against the order of the court rejecting  the review.  On this basis, we reject the appeal.   No cost.

I.A. No.1/93 (Application for  substitution).

No orders are necessary in view of the  rejection of the appeal."

       The position has been re-iterated in Suseel Finance &  Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and Ors. [(2004) 13 SCC 675] and M.N.  Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors.  [(2004) 13 SCC 677]. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the  basic order dated 20.8.2004 passed by the High Court has  been challenged by filing a special leave petition on 9.10.2006.  However, dismissal of this present appeal shall not stand on  the way of consideration of the Special Leave Petition stated to  have been filed on 9.10.2006. The same shall be dealt with in  accordance with law.

The appeal is dismissed. No costs.