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

PETITIONER: SOW CHANDRA KANTA AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHEIK HABIB

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1975

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1975 AIR 1500            1975 SCC  (4) 457  CITATOR INFO :  R          1980 SC 674  (8)  E          1980 SC 808  (8)  F          1980 SC2041  (12)  RF         1983 SC1125  (7)  RF         1990 SC 538  (5)

ACT: Constitution  of  India, 1950, Art. 137  and  Supreme  Court Rules,  1966, Order XL--Review of an order refusing  special leave--Review proceeding, if amounts to re-hearing.

HEADNOTE: Once an order refusing special leave has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be subject to the rules of  the Supreme   Court   Rules,  1966,  and   cannot   be   lightly entertained.   Review  proceeding does not amount to  a  re- hearing.   A  review  of a judgment is a  serious  step  and reluctant  resort  to  it is proper  only  where  a  glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept  in earlier by judicial fallibility.  Even if the order refusing special  leave was capable of a different course, review  of the  earlier order is not permissible because such an  order has the normal feature of finality. [933 F-G; 934 B] Observation  :  It is neither fairness to  the  Court  which decided nor awareness of the precious public time lost  what with  a  huge back-log of dockets waiting in the  queue  for disposal,  for  counsel  ’to  issue  easy  certificates  for entertainment of review and fight over again the same battle which has been fought and lost. [933 H]

JUDGMENT: REVIEW JURISDICTION : Review Petition No. 62A of 1974. Petition  for  review of this Court’s Order dated  the  18th January, 1974 in Spl.  Leave Petition No. 2788 of 1973. C.  K.  Daphtary, S. K. Dholakia and R. C. Bhatia,  for  the petitioner. S. V. Tambwaker, for the respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA  IYER,  J.  Mr. Daphtary, learned  counsel  for  the petitioners, has argued at length all the points which  were urged  at  the earlier stage when we refused  special  leave

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

thus  making out that a review proceeding virtually  amounts to  re-hearing.   May  be, we were  not  right  in  refusing special  leave  in the first round; but, once an  order  has been passed by this Court, a review thereof must be  subject to the rules of the game and cannot be lightly  entertained. A  review  of  a judgment is a serious  step  and  reluctant resort  to  it is proper only where a  glaring  omission  or patent  mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier  by judicial fallibility.  A mere repetition, through  different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually   covered   ground  or   minor   mistakes   of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient.  The very strict  need  for  compliance  with  these  factors  is  the rationale  behind  the insistence of  counsel’s  certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step.  It is neither fairness to the court which decided nor awareness of  the precious public time lost what with a huge  back-log of dockets waiting in the queue for disposal, for counsel to issue  easy  certificates for entertainment  of  review  and fight  over again the same battle which has been fought  and lost.  The Bench 934 and  the  Bar,  we are sure, are jointly  concerned  in  the conservation of judicial time for maximum use.  We regret to say  that  this  case  is typical  of  the  unfortunate  but frequent  phenomenon of repeat performance with  the  review label  as passport.  Nothing which we did not hear then  has been heard now, except a couple of rulings on points earlier put forward.  May be, as counsel now urges and then pressed, our order refusing special leave was capable of a  different course.  The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of  an  earlier  order  which  has  the  normal  feature  of finality. We  dismiss  the  petition unhesitatingly,  but  with  these observations, hopefully. V.M.K.                 Review petition dismissed. 935