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

PETITIONER: TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: N. RAJU REDDIAR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      It is  a sad  spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and  conducive to  the profession  is croppingup. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record  had filed  vakalatnama  for the petitioner-respondent  when the  special leave  petition was  filed.  After  the  matter  was  disposed  of,  Mr.  V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also  dismissed by  this Court  on April  24, 1996.  Yet another advocate,  Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the  present application  styled  as  "application  for clarification", on  the specious  plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed,  except in  rare cases  where error  of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by  the advocate  on record who neither appeared nor was party in  the main  case. It  is salutary  to not that court spends valuable  time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and  should not  be, an  attempt for hearing the matter again on  merits. Unfortunately,  it has  become, in  recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too,  with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the  advocate on  record at  earlier stage.  This is  not conducive to  healthy practice  of the  Bar  which  has  the responsibility  to   maintain  the   salutary  practice   of profession. In  Review Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy,J., was a member, has held as under:      "The record of the appeal indicates      that Shri  Sudarsh Menon  was heard      and decided  on merits.  The Review      Petition has  been  filed  by  Shri      Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an      arguing counsel when the appeal was      heard nor  was he  present  at  the      time of  arguments. It  is  unknown      on what  basis he  has written  the      grounds in  the Review  Petition as      if it  is a  rehearing of an appeal      against  our   order.  He  did  not      confine to  the scope of review. It

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

    would be not in the interest of the      profession to permit such practice.      That part, he has not obtained " No      Objection  Certificate"   from  the      Advocate-on-Record in  the  appeal,      in spite  of the fact that Registry      had informed him of the requirement      for doing  so. Filing  of  the  "No      Objection Certificate" would be the      basis for  him to  come on  record.      Otherwise,  the  Advocate-on-Record      is answerable  to  the  Court.  The      failure to obtain the "No Objection      Certificate"  from   the  erstwhile      counsel has disentitled him to file      the    Review     Petition.    Even      otherwise, the  Review Petition has      no merits,  It  is  an  attempt  to      reargue the matter on merits.           On these  grounds, we  dismiss      the Review Petition".      Once  the   petition  for   review  is   dismissed,  no application for  clarification should  be filed,  much  less with the  change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the  advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy had for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.      The application  is dismissed  with exemplary  costs of Rs.20,000/- as  it is  an abuse  of the  process of court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be paid to the Supreme  Court Legal  Aid Services Committee within four months from  today. If  the amount is not paid, it should be recovered treating  this direction as decree of the Court by the Supreme  Court Legal Services Committee. The Registry is directed to  communicate this  order to  the  Supreme  Court Legal Service Committee.