M.Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors. Vs. Mandal Revenue, Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer
EmailAppeal: Review Petition No. (RPD No. 17573/98)
IN
Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 – 8745 of 1994
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.93 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.Nos. 497, 645/91 and A.S.No. 1350 of 1991)
IN
Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 – 8745 of 1994
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.93 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.Nos. 497, 645/91 and A.S.No. 1350 of 1991)
Petitioner: M.Satyanarayana Murthy & Ors.
Respondent: Mandal Revenue, Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer
Apeal: Review Petition No. (RPD No. 17573/98)
IN
Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 – 8745 of 1994
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.93 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.Nos. 497, 645/91 and A.S.No. 1350 of 1991)
IN
Civil Appeal Nos. 8743 – 8745 of 1994
(From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.93 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.Nos. 497, 645/91 and A.S.No. 1350 of 1991)
Judges: A.S.ANAND & G.T. NANAVATI,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 25, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. Vimal Dave, Advocate for the Petitioners/Appellants.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Review – Second review of same order – Delay of 2 years and 321 days – Explanation not satisfactory – Fact of earlier review mentioned with out date of filing and decision. Held that succes-sive review petitions are not permissible. Filing of second review is abuse of process of law. Dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. There is a delay of 2 years and 321 days in filing this review petition. The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and not at all reasonable. Besides, we also find that the peti-tioners had filed earlier also a review petition No.214 of 1995 against the same order, which was dismissed by this Court on 22.2.1995. Both in the memorandum of the review petition and in the application seeking condonation of delay, though this fact is mentioned, but the number of the review petition has been left blank and so also the date on which the same was dismissed. This shows the casual manner in which this second review petition has been filed. Recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is not permissible more so because no error apparent on the record has been brought out. It appears to us that the petitioners are unnecessarily taking liberties. The filing of the second review petition is an abuse of the process of the court. We, therefore, dismiss this review petition both of the ground of unexplained inordinate delay and on merits with Rs.5,000/- as costs. The directions with regard to disbursement of the costs shall be issued after the same are deposited in the Registry.
1. There is a delay of 2 years and 321 days in filing this review petition. The explanation for the delay contained in the application seeking condonation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory and not at all reasonable. Besides, we also find that the peti-tioners had filed earlier also a review petition No.214 of 1995 against the same order, which was dismissed by this Court on 22.2.1995. Both in the memorandum of the review petition and in the application seeking condonation of delay, though this fact is mentioned, but the number of the review petition has been left blank and so also the date on which the same was dismissed. This shows the casual manner in which this second review petition has been filed. Recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is not permissible more so because no error apparent on the record has been brought out. It appears to us that the petitioners are unnecessarily taking liberties. The filing of the second review petition is an abuse of the process of the court. We, therefore, dismiss this review petition both of the ground of unexplained inordinate delay and on merits with Rs.5,000/- as costs. The directions with regard to disbursement of the costs shall be issued after the same are deposited in the Registry.
