dear members
please go through the enclosed write up on the possible contradictions in various orders on the applicability of provisions regarding reviews under Order 47 of civil procedure code.
please excuse me if i sound rude or otherwise, because we are affected by the contradictory judgements.
our whole case was washed out because of one judgement even after two supreme court orders in our favour and after registration of sale deed in our favour by the executing court itself.
enlightened fellow lawyer friends, pl advise what to do.
yours
v.lakshminarayanan
palani
dear members
further to my earlier posting as above, i am a little disappointed to see nil response inspite of my (stupid?) write up having been downloaded many times.
i just came across a latest judgement dated 19.10.12 (by justices radhakrishnan and Dipak Mishra) in Khoday Distilleries vs Mahadeswara SSK Ltd. wherein the same point has been raised and the court has referred the matter to a larger bench.
interestingly, the court has quoted our own matter (s.bhagirathi vs roman catholic mission).
the recent trend is to hold that a review after dismissal of SLP (not withdrawl) would not be maintainable. this is my considered view also (though I maintain that i am only a lay man).
i would like to get the expert opinion of our learned supreme court advocate friends cum members on this forum. i strongly believe that it is high time the matter is taken to the constitution bench. even a three member bench is not enough - because there is direct conflict between two three member orders - one in kunhayammed matter and another in abbai maligai matter. of course, it is easy to say that the later judgement will prevail.
kindly treat this as quite urgent.
thanks
yours sincerely
v.lakshminarayanan
palani
Our Network Sites
