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

PETITIONER: R. DAYANANDA SAGAR ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VATAL NAGARAJ ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1976

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. KHANNA, HANS RAJ BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1976 AIR 2183            1976 SCR  121  1976 SCC  (2) 932

ACT:      Review of  judgment of  Supreme Court  should not  be a routine sequel  of a  defeat in Court-Constitution of India, Art. 137  and order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 read with order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure   code

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner  filed a  review petition  on the ground that certain observations in the judgment amounted to almost branding him  as an  unindicted criminal-guilty  of abetting forgery and perjury and they should be obliterated.      Dismissing the  petitions and  modifying the  rigour of the observations the Court held: ^      (1) A judgment of the final Court of the land is final. review of  such a  judgment  is  an  exceptional  phenomenon permitted only when a grave and glaring error or other well- established ground is made out. Unfounded and indiscriminate petitions almost  as a  routine sequel  to defeat  in  court should be  avoided despite  the theoretical  possibility  of success [121 G]      Obiter Wisdom cannot be confounded with obstinacy and a charitable construction  of a situation. cannot be excluded. [122 E]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Review Petition Nos. 43 and 44 of 1975.      Application for review of this Hon’ble Court’s Judgment dated 11th  October 1974  in the  matter of Civil Appeal No. 1738 of 1973.      A.  K.  Sen,  M.  Veerappa  and  Altaf  Ahmed  for  the Petitioners in Review Petition No. 43 of 1975.      Y. S.  Desai and  R. B.  Datar for  the Petitioners  in Review Petition No. 44 of 1975.      The order of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA IYER,  J. A  judgment of the final Court of the land is final. A review of such a judgment is an exceptional phenomenon, permitted  only where  a grave and glarind error

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

or other well-established ground is made out. Unfortunately, the theoretical  possibility, successful  in  a  microscopic rarity,  of  cases,  has  led  to  frequent,  unfounded  and indiscriminate petitions,  almost as  a routine  sequel to a defeat in Court. The present review petitions fall under the latter  category  and  fail  by  the  former  test  and  are therefore dismissed.      Shri Asoke  Sen made  a limited submission on behalf of Dayananda  Sagar   in  CMP   2095  of   1975  that   certain observations in  the ’Judgment almost branding his client as an  unindicted  criminal-guilty  of  abetting  forgery’  and purjury-were altogether unmerited and should be obliterated. While we cannot agree to this course, we admit that these 122 strictures are  in no way integral to the decision, although relevant if we take an overall view.      It is  true that  the words used are strong and we felt then that  they were  warranted. After hearing both sides we deem it  meet to  soften the judicial blow. Shri Sen submits that we  were misled in reaching the inference drawn. Maybe, we were.  Judge Learned  Hand once  said that  the spirit of liberty is  ’the spirit  which is  not too  sure that  it is right’. that  great Judge  was ’fond of recalling Cromwell’s statement: ’I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may  be mistaken’.’ He told a Senate Committee, ’I should like to  have that written over the portals of every church, every school  and every court-house, and may I say, of every legislative body in the United States. 1 should like to have every court  begin. ’I  beseech ye  in the  bowels of Christ think that  we may be mistaken’. (Yale Law Journal: Vol. 71, 1961 November part).      In a  sense,  it  is  this  likelihood  of  error  that persuaded Jesus  Christ to  caution: ’Judge  not, that ye be not judged’.  Our search for truth sometimes reaches a blind alley expressed  by Bacon:  "’what is  truth?  said  Jesting Pilato: and would not stay for an answer’."      In this conspectus of great sayings, we are inclined to be humble  in spirit  and free to tone down the harshness of the  characterisation  to  some  extent.  We  would  content ourselves by  saying that  the materials placed before us in appeal, read  in the  light of  the conclusionls of the High Court, may  well lead  to  the  inference  and  justify  the observations made  by US,  although it  may not be ruled out that a  more innocent inference exculpating any role for the petitioner is  possible. Thus far, we modify the rigour, but decline to  cancel, as  pleaded by  the  petitioner.  Wisdom cannot  be   confounded  with  obstinacy  and  a  charitable construction of  a situation cannot be excluded. That is why we have consented to the dilution. S.R.                                    Petitions  dismissed 123