'Great Sanctity For Finality Of Judgment': Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Entertain Second Review Petition Arising Out Of Writ Proceedings

Noting that the 'doctrine of finality' in judgments has great sanctity, Madhya Pradesh High Court held a second review petition before it arising out of a writ matter to be non-maintainable.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vinay Shukla acknowledged the dangers of allowing parties to reopen concluded judgments by filing repeated interlocutory applications. Terming the same as an abuse of the process of law with far-reaching consequences in the realm of justice administration, the division bench pointed out that the 'finality of judgment' enjoys great sanctity in a country governed by 'rule of law'.

Afterwards, turning to the factual matrix of the case, the court proceeded to make the following observations:

“…The petitioner has already exhausted remedy of writ petition, writ appeal, review and SLP. All the courts have dismissed the case of the petitioner. In the present case, counsel for petitioner could not point out any grave and palpable errors committed by the courts in its order. Under the garb of review jurisdiction, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the matter again and again.”

The petitioner's counsel tried to establish that writ proceedings are not akin to civil proceedings and that the provisions of CPC wouldn't be applicable in writ matters, in view of Section 141 CPC.

“…If the submission of counsel for petitioner is accepted, then there would be no end to the litigation and in a proceeding arising out of Article 226 of the Constitution of India the parties may file number of review petitions which would be against the doctrine of finality”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed by placing its reliance on apex court decisions in Rashid Khan Pathan & Vijay Kurle & Ors (2021) 12 SCC 64 & Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, LL 2021 SC 564.

Background

In the current case, petitioner Sadashiv Joshi's land was sought to be acquired by Indore Development Authority in pursuance of a town improvement scheme. In 1987, a challenge was made to the scheme as well as the process of acquisition before the High Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, he had relinquished his claim to a portion of the property initially mentioned. In 1996, the High Court allowed Joshi's writ petition. Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Development Authority got dismissed in 1998.

In 2001, the petitioner preferred another writ for implementation and compliance of the directions given in the aforementioned judgements. However, this writ was filed by concealing his relinquishment in the first writ petition. Once this writ was dismissed by the court which construed the plea as misconceived, the petitioner filed a slew of other writ petitions, the last one being in 2006. The High Court dismissed the same by citing the petitioner's earlier relinquishment of a part of the claim and the issue of non-maintainability due to finality achieved in the previous round of litigation.

A writ appeal was filed in 2008 against this latest decision of the High Court; the writ appeal got dismissed in 2017 with a cost of Rs 50,000/- to be borne by the petitioner. Further, the review petition filed was also dismissed by the court in 2018. The Special Leave Petition filed before the apex court thereafter was dismissed as withdrawn. The orders in the writ appeal and first review are being challenged by the petitioner in this second review.

Court's Observations

In the SLP dismissal order, apex court had briefly mentioned about petitioner's liberty to approach the High Court. However, the court construed the same in a different manner, contrary to the interpretation adopted by the petitioner's counsel.

“…the petitioner has exhausted remedy of writ petition, writ appeal, review and SLP and thereafter the present review petition is filed and upon perusal of the order of the Apex Court it is axiomatic that no liberty was granted to file review. The petitioner had himself withdrawn SLP to approach the High Court. It goes without saying that the said liberty has to be resorted in accordance with law”, the court initially noted about the non-maintainability of a second review petition.

The court also iterated the general rule that unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, a review cannot be entertained which is a proposition that's no longer res integra.

“….In a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. That is not the case herein, since the petitioner had already exhausted the remedy of review and has now filed a second review before the High Court”, the court further added, after pointing out the difference of context in Shivdeo Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab & Ors , AIR 1963 SC 1909 cited by the petitioner.

About the petitioner's reliance on a passing observation made by the full bench of Madras High Court in Mayavaram Financial Corporation Ltd. v. The Registrar of Chits (1988) to the effect that CPC provisions are not applicable in writ proceedings, the Division Bench termed it as obiter dicta.

Hence, the court dismissed the review petition for being devoid of merits.

Case Title: Sadashiv Joshi v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Collector Indore & Ors

Case No: Review Petition No. 1705 of 2018

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 40

Click Here To Read/ Download Order