Suresh G. Ramnani vs Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares (Dead Thr. Lrs) & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

10 November 2022

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 8293 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

Aniruddha Bose, Vikram Nath

Citation

[2022] 10 S.C.R. 69 : 2022 INSC 1196

Headnote

Judicial propriety: Application seeking hearing of review by a particular judge – Matter to be placed on the administrative side or order to be passed on judicial side – Held: 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 – Proviso to r. 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers 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 where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench – Chief Justice, being the master of roster and being conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules – On facts, the Single Judge ought not to have dealt with the application but should have referred the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice – In view thereof, direction to the Registry of the High Court to place the application on the administrative side before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Bombay High Court Rules – Chapter XXX, r 3(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. 47 r. 5.

Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka (2011)

15 SCC 330; Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of

Environment and Forests and others (2018) 18 SCC 257; Maharashtra Housing & Development Authority v. P V Anturkar (2009) 3 Mh Lj 266; Ratanlal Nahata v. Nandita Bose (1998) 3 CALLT 348 HC – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAM NATH, J. Leave granted. 2. This is defendant’s appeal assailing the correctness of the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, rejecting the Misc. Civil Application No.526 of 2019 in Civil Application (Review) No.7 of 2019. The order reads as under: “Heard Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Advocate for the applicant. 2. In view of the clause (3) of Chapter 13 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules prayer (a) of the application cannot be granted. 3. Mr. N. Fernandes, learned Counsel submits that matter be placed after 5

View Subscription Plans →