Application Seeking Hearing Of Review Petition By A Particular HC Judge Has To Be Placed Before Chief Justice Of HC On Administrative Side ; Not On Judicial Side : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an application seeking to assign a review petition to a particular HC judge should be placed before Chief Justice of the High Court and not to be dealt on judicial side. 

Justice GS Patel reserved a second appeal for judgment while he was sitting at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. The judgment allowing the second appeal was delivered through virtual mode by the Judge while sitting at Bombay. The respondent thereafter filed a review petition which was listed before Justice Nutan D. Sardessai who admitted it. An application was filed by the other party praying that the review petition be transferred and be placed before Justice G.S. Patel for final disposal. This application was dealt by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan who rejected it. Against the said order, the party approached the Apex Court.

We do not wish to go into the issue of interpreting the Rules in order to hold as to whether the review should be heard by Judge 'A' or any other Judge, the bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath observed.

The court however added that the matter ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than order being passed on the judicial side.

"The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers this power on the Chief Justice to assign a particular matter to a single Judge for hearing of the review application where the single Judge concerned was not available for the time being by reason of being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid i.e. where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench. The Chief Justice, being the master of roster and being conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules, the learned single Judge ought not to have dealt with the application dated 16.07.2009 (Misc. Civil Application No.526 of 2019), but should have referred the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice.", the court said while setting aside the impugned order.

Case details

Suresh G. Ramnani vs Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 939 | SLP(C) 20623 of 2019 | 10 Nov 2022 | Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath

For Appellant(s) Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Rohan Naik, Adv. Mr. Neil Chatterjee, Adv

Headnotes

Bombay High Court Rules ; Chapter XXX ; Rule 3(1) Proviso- Once an application was preferred by any of the parties that a review may be heard by the Judge who had decided the matter and had passed the order from which the review arose, the matter ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than order being passed on the judicial side. The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers this power on the Chief Justice to assign a particular matter to a single Judge for hearing of the review application where the single Judge concerned was not available for the time being by reason of being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid i.e. where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench. The Chief Justice, is the master of roster and is conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment