Lawyer Who Was Not Engaged Earlier Cannot Re-Argue Case By Filing Review Petition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes 20K Cost

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a lawyer, who was not even the filing or arguing counsel previously in the matter, cannot file a review of the case to re-argue the matter.

The Court dismissed the review application with an exemplary cost of Rs.20,000 observing that there was no reason to file the review and the case cannot be re-argued by filing the review plea.

Justice Alka Sarin noted that the counsel did not argue on the maintainability of the review application, and neither the filing counsel nor the arguing counsel was present at the time of passing of the impugned order.

"By filing the present review application the review applicant-petitioner is wanting to re-argue and reagitate the matter, which cannot be permitted in law. The case was argued on merits and was decided on merits and hence no ground is made out to entertain the present review application," said the judge.

The Court was hearing a review application seeking review of the order passed in February this year wherein the petitioner was directed to deposit the mesne profit.

Without addressing any argument on the maintainability of the revision filed, the new counsel who was earlier not engaged, argued the matter on merits.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that "...Supreme Court has repeatedly deprecated the conduct of the parties of changing their counsel and filing review petitions."

Reliance was placed on T.N. Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. [1997], wherein the Apex Court said, "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."

Justice Sarin highlighted that counsel for the review applicant-petitioner has not addressed any argument on the maintainability of the present application by a new counsel who was neither the filing counsel nor the arguing counsel nor was present at the time of passing of the order dated 05.02.2024.

 "By filing the present review application the review applicant-petitioner wants to re-argue and reagitate the matter, which cannot be permitted in law. The case was argued on merits and was decided on merits and hence no ground is made out to entertain the present review application," the judge added.

In light of the above, the Court opined that the review application was bereft of merit and dismissed it with an "exemplary costs of Rs.20,000."

Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the review applicant-petitioner

Title: Yuvraj Singh v. Harninder Singh and Another

Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the review applicant-petitioner

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 215

Click here to read/download the order