M/S Brahmaputra Concrete Pipe Industries Etc. Etc. vs The Assam State Electricity Board and Others

Held: Instant matter ought to be decided by a Bench of this Court and not by the Registry – Registry cannot be vested with power to decide whether a review petition, after being dismissed in open Court hearing, merited relook through the curative jurisdiction – That would be a judicial exercise – A curative petition arising from an order dismissing a review petition upon hearing in open Court must contain a plea or prayer seeking excuse from compliance of making averment as contained in Ord. XLVIII r. 2(1) – Proper course for the Registry on receiving such a petition with a prayer to be excused from the above requirement would be to obtain instructions from the Judge in chambers and thereafter communicate such instructions to the parties – r. 2, second part, provides that the Registrar herself can direct the applicant to serve the other party with a notice of motion returnable before the Court while she opines that it is desirable that the application should be dealt with in the open Court but would not apply where the applicant approaches this Court after the review petition is dismissed in open court hearing – In cases where review plea is dismissed by circulation, the curative petition has to be circulated first to a Bench of three senior-most Judges of this Court and the Judges who passed the judgment complained of, if available – Thereafter, the course prescribed in sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) of r. 4 of Ord. XLVIII would be followed as may be applicable – In the instant appeal, said course not followed when the order was passed declining registration of the curative petition – Said order being contrary to the provisions of the Rules, thus, set aside, however, not a fit case to remand the matter to the Registrar as substantial time has lapsed – No case made out for invoking the curative jurisdiction to take relook into the case – Purpose would not be served in sending the matter back to the Chamber Judge for instructions in the given circumstances. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 23] Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVIII – Curative petition – Limitation for filing:

Held: Curative jurisdiction being a special jurisdiction derived from inherent power or jurisdiction of this Court, the limitation prescribed for filing of review petition cannot be extended to apply in the cases of curative petition – Curative jurisdiction of this Court does not flow from its power to review, but this jurisdiction is derived from Arts 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India – Moreover, r. 3 of Order XLVIII specifically stipulates that curative petition has to be filed within reasonable time from the date of judgment or order passed in a review petition – No timeframe has been formulated in the 2013 Rules either for filing a curative petition. [Para 11]