IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Review Application No. 210 of 2011 in [CASE NUMBER] DATE OF DECISION : OCTOBER 21, 2011 GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE BAJGHERA APPLICANT/PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUNE), HARYANA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] PRESENT: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner(s). Mr. SS Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. [ENTITY], Sr. Advocate, with Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondents 13 & 14. Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondents 15 to 23. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
1 This application prays for review of decision dated 15.2.2011.
2 The facts, in brief, as they emanate from the record, are that [CASE NUMBER] was filed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a short contention that the Financial Commissioner had the powers of revisional authority under the [ACT] (for short 'the Act'), in context of order [CASE NUMBER] dated 20.11.2003 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner. Despite the powers of revision vesting in the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P-4), it has been held that remedy of revision under the Act had already been availed of before the Commissioner and, therefore, the revision petition could not be entertained by the Financial Commissioner.
3 Vide the decision under review i.e. order dated 15.2.2011, following has been held (in para-29):-
"29. Consideration of facts and circumstances of this case clearly establish that proceedings were initiated under [SECTION] of the Act. The present petition, however, has been argued on the premise that proceedings had been filed under [SECTION] of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner so as to hold that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-4) is illegal, without jurisdiction or against the provisions of law."
4 Order dated 15.2.2011 records that there was no challenge to the orders passed by the authorities, on facts or merits. A limited question of jurisdiction had been raised, which has been answered.
5 It appears that the applicant-petitioner filed [CASE NUMBER]. On 9.5.2011, the following order was passed:-
"Counsel for the appellant has moved an application for amendment of the writ petition on a ground that sufficient material was brought on record, during proceedings before the learned [CASE NUMBER] (O&M) Judge to lay challenge to the orders passed by the authorities below. It is also stated that those documents were pressed at the time of final arguments, however, on account of a fact that those were not referred in the pleadings, the documents were ignored.
Counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw this appeal with a view to move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge first and thereafter, if need be, file an appeal.
Ordered accordingly."
6 The application for review has been filed through a counsel, who was not the counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition.
7 In para-7 of the application for review, it has been pleaded that although in the writ petition, order (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner, has also been impugned, but due to inadvertence and oversight, no ground to challenge the said order, on merits, was pleaded in the writ petition. 8 In para-8 of the application for review, it has been pleaded that due to a lapse in the drafting of the writ petition by not mentioning the ground to challenge the orders passed by the authorities on merits, although a prayer to quash was made in the prayer clause of the writ petition, grave and manifest injustice had been caused to the applicant-petitioner. 9 In para-9 of the application for review, it has been said that the Gram Panchayat in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, be allowed to amend the writ petition accordingly in order to add the ground of challenge to the [CASE NUMBER] impugned orders, on merits as well and, in this regard, craves the indulgence of the court to permit it to file a separate application for amendment of the writ petition. 10 An application for amendment of the writ petition has been filed along with the review application, the same being [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER]. In this application, [SECTION] sought to be added, explaining the entries in the revenue record and challenging the orders passed by the statutory authorities on that basis, on merits.
11 Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has vehemently argued that, in fact, challenge to the impugned orders is contained in para-6 and ground (iv) of para-9 of the writ petition. This court should have taken judicial notice of the fact that said pleading had been made in the writ petition and entertained the writ petition in challenge to the impugned orders, on merits also.
12 On the second count, it has been argued that the court wanted to exercise suo motu jurisdiction and test the legality of impugned orders, on merits, as is evident from the zimni orders passed, while giving liberty to the parties to place on record the relevant revenue record.
13 On the third count, it has been argued that the power of the High Court is plenary and inherent in nature under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and is not curtailed by rigid principles of [SECTION], [ACT]. Rather, [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION], [ACT], applicability of the provisions of the Code have been excluded, so far as a writ petition is concerned.
14 In regard to scope of review, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], and [PRECEDENT].
15 Shri [ENTITY], learned senior counsel for non- applicant/respondents No.13 and 14, has argued that no argument in regard to merit in the impugned orders was addressed and, therefore, the same has not been dealt with. The order under review is clear in that regard and, therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner cannot argue otherwise.
16 In the context of pleadings in the writ petition, it has been argued that challenge is only in regard to jurisdiction of Financial Commissioner to entertain the revision petition, in law, and not on merits of the impugned orders. It has been pointed out that in the writ petition, no proper foundation was laid, nor any ground urged to challenge the order (Annexure P-3), passed by the Commissioner. In this regard, reference has been made [CASE NUMBER] to paras 7 to 9 of the application for review, to say that it is the admitted case of the applicant-petitioner that no challenge to the impugned orders, on merits, had been made in the writ petition and, therefore, it does not lie with the applicant- petitioner to argue that challenge was made, on merits, also. 17 It has been pointed out that power to review is there, however, limitations have been provided thereto. Without proper foundation in the writ petition, this court could not have adjudicated on the merits of the impugned orders. 18 It has been contended, in the context of zimni orders, that this court, at no point in time, took suo motu action. Only liberty was given to the parties to place documents on record. The applicant-petitioner should have filed an application for amendment in the writ petition along with the documents, during the period when the writ petition was pending. At the stage of review, the applicant-petitioner cannot seek review on the basis of amendment application and accompanying documents.
19 It has been argued that the respondents are required to be given an opportunity to oppose the pleadings. No pleading in challenge to the orders, on merits, having been filed, the respondents had no occasion to respond thereto. In such circumstances also, the review application is misconceived. 20 On legal issues,it has been argued that the Court has to go by the case pleaded by the parties and issues raised therefrom. If a party omits to raise a foundation to a claim, [CASE NUMBER] review jurisdiction cannot come to the aid of such a party. 21 Learned counsel for non-applicant/respondents No.13 and 14 has relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]. 22 I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
23 So as to consider the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), it has been held that there is nothing in [SECTION] of the [ACT] to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. 24 The judgment would have no application to the facts of the case, because a case is to be seen and perceived in context of its pleadings and arguments addressed in context of pleadings. The relevant pleadings are sought to be brought on record by way of the review application and amendment in the writ petition, which in my considered opinion, cannot be considered for review of the decision.
25 In [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), it has been held that while dealing with a writ, the powers of High Court cannot be limited by procedural provisions prescribed in the Code. The [CASE NUMBER] High Court should be left to adopt its own procedure to grant relief to the persons concerned.
26 In [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with an issue arising out of an order passed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The issue raised was that the appellants had not taken any steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased, who was respondent to the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition had abated. The judgment has been cited out of context. 27 In [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), it has been held that power under [SECTION] is administrative as well as judicial. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction.
28 The judgment will not come to the aid of the applicant-petitioner for the simple reason that the petition had been filed without relevant pleadings. The powers are required to be exercised by a High Court in writ jurisdiction, on the basis of pleadings and relief claimed. The necessary exercise having not been done by the applicant-petitioner, this court could not make out a case for the applicant-petitioner that had not been pleaded or argued.
29 Likewise, the judgment rendered in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), does not help the case of the [CASE NUMBER] applicant-petitioner because the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while relying on [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), has held that there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.
30 Now, to deal with the cases cited on behalf of the respondent, in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), the law has been laid to the effect that there is nothing in [SECTION] of the [ACT] to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. It has further been held that there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
31 Reliance has been placed on the judgment in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra) to hold that there are definitive limits to the exercise of power of review. Likewise, reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), in the same context.
[CASE NUMBER] 32 In the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), judgment of Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was challenged, vide which the review application filed by the appellants had been dismissed. The writ petition filed for quashing orders passed by the Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Indore, was disposed of vide order dated 3.3.1994. During the pendency of the petition, orders were passed quantifying the liability of appellant No.1 for imposition of penalty. These orders were challenged in the writ petition by amending the same. The High Court quashed the orders so far as they related to imposition of penalty. Questioning the correctness of the order, an appeal was carried before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.4.2002. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had not interfered with the order of the High Court on one issue. However, on another issue, it was recorded that, in case, the High Court had not answered an argument that had been advanced before it, the party should approach the High Court in review.
33 Review application was, accordingly, filed before the High Court, taking the stand that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had permitted filing of a review application. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal while holding that from a reading of the order of the High Court and the counter- affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no such argument was advanced and, therefore, it was not [CASE NUMBER] considered to be a fit case where any interference was called for, considering the limited scope of review. In this context, the scope of review has been considered in context of judgment rendered in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra). 34 In the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is well settled that the decision of a case cannot be based on ground outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case pleaded that has to be found. Without an amendment of the plaint the court was not entitled to grant the relief not asked for and no prayer was ever made to amend the plaint so as to incorporate in it an alternative case.
35 Before adverting to the issue of review of the decision, it is imperative to examine as to what is a writ petition. 36 In [PRECEDENT], the following has been held (in para-13) :-
"13. As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteering by the State was pleaded in the writ petitions before the High Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any material in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions. Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a [CASE NUMBER] point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter- affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the [ACT] and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit."
37 In [PRECEDENT], in para-75, it has been held that "A writ petitioner has to stand on his own legs and has to rely on the pleadings in the writ petition". Having held thus, in para-76, the following has been held:-
"76. Such radical change in the stand, as also the radical change in the prayers could not have been allowed by the High Court in a writ petition, much less when the High Court was concerned with the limited exercise of deciding the correctness or otherwise of the Tribunal's judgment. Unfortunately, [CASE NUMBER] the High Court seems to have travelled much beyond the pleadings and has, therefore, fallen into error in granting an unimaginable relief to the writ petitioners of creating a service for them with a separate nomenclature. All this was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court."
38 In para-83, it has been held that "There could be no doubt about the High Court's power to mould the relief. However, even in its plenary jurisdiction, while moulding the relief, there must be a plea to support such a relief. The relief granted by the High Court in this case is extraordinarily beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court and has no nucleus in the writ petitions or in the original applications". 39 In [PRECEDENT], it has been held as under (in para-58):-
"58. It is settled law that in such writ petitions a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not permissible. The High Court not only engaged itself into a non permitted fact finding exercise but also went on to rely on the findings of the Amicus Curaie, or as the case may be, the Scrutiny Team, which in our opinion was inappropriate. While testing the fairness of the selection process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, the High Court should have been slow in relying upon such microscopic findings. It was not for the High Court to place itself into a position of a fact finding commission, that too, more particularly at the instance of those petitioners who were unsuccessful candidates. The High Court should, therefore, have restricted itself to the [CASE NUMBER] pleadings in the writ petition and the say of the respondents. Unfortunately, the High Court took it upon itself the task of substituting itself for the Selection Committee and also in the process assumed the role of an Appellate Tribunal which was, in our opinion, not proper. Thus, the High Court converted this writ petition into a public interest litigation without any justification."
40 The following has been concluded in para-65 (relevant portion) of the report:-
"65. We also do not approve of the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as going all the way into the facts and the microscopic details not via the pleadings of the parties but on the basis of an unnecessary investigation. "
41 In [PRECEDENT], in paras 9 and 10, it has been held as under:-
"9. Therefore, there was no express view expressed regarding the validity of the policy decision by the Tribunal as wrongly concluded by the High Court. Obviously, the High Court could not have made out a case for adjudication which was not even part of the pleadings. In [PRECEDENT], this Court observed as under
(SCC p.45, para8) :
" Counsel for the parties are right in submitting that the point on which the writ petition has been disposed of was not raised by the parties in their pleadings. The parties were not at issue on the point decided by the High Court "
[CASE NUMBER]
10. In [PRECEDENT] this Court at SCC p. 758, para 33 observed as under :
"In the absence of any challenge having been laid, the constitutional validity of the amendment cannot be gone into."
42 In [PRECEDENT], the following has been held in para-8 (relevant portion):-
" It is too well settled that the petitioner who approaches the court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court under [SECTION] must fully aver and establish his rights flowing from the bundle of facts thereby requiring respondent to indicate its stand either by denial or by positive assertions. But in the absence of any averments in the writ petition or even in the rejoinder affidavit it is not permissible for a court to arrive at a conclusion on a factual position merely on the basis of submissions made in course of hearing."
43 In [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held (in para-8) to the effect that the writ courts would be well advised to decide the petitions on the points raised in the petition and if in a rare case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case any additional points are to be raised then the concerned and affected parties should be put to notice on the additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice. The parties cannot be taken by surprise.
44 Considering the law, as laid down above, it transpires [CASE NUMBER] that a civil writ petition is a suit which is required to be supplemented with the evidence on which the petitioner chooses to rely, in view of its nature. Not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and documents annexed in case of a writ petition. When a writ petitioner raises a point of law which is required to be substantiated by facts, he must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and accompanying documents. If he is a respondent, the facts asserted are required to be proved from the written statement/counter affidavit and supporting documents. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the written statement/counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point.
45 Pleadings include documents placed on record as annexures. When a document is placed on record along with a writ petition, it is explained in the body of the writ petition in regard to its relevance and as to why the said document has been placed on record and what ground of challenge emerges therefrom. The respondent thereby is given an opportunity to respond to the pleadings in the writ petition and appended annexures, so as to clarify his stand and point of view. 46 This Court in [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT] decided on 10.9.2010, [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT] [CASE NUMBER] decided on 6.4.2011, and [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT] decided on 1.8.2011, has held to the above effect.
47 A Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with [CASE NUMBER] in [PRECEDENT], decided on 5.8.2005, in regard to the scope of interference in review application, has held in the following terms:-
"Normally, when the matter is being decided at motion stage, it is not possible always to notice all the judgments cited by the learned counsel. We had considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel, but reference was not made to the aforesaid two judgments as the same were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. It is not necessary that each and every argument raised by the counsel and each and every authority cited by the learned counsel, has to be considered, whether they are relevant or irrelevant. Given the huge pendency of old cases before the High Court, the Court has to perform a balancing act whilst recording the orders at the motion stage. The requirement of law as laid down by the Supreme in numerous cases is that when the petition is being disposed of at motion stage, the court should pass a speaking order. The requirement is not that an elaborate judgment be written dealing with all the relevant as well as irrelevant judgments that may be cited by the learned counsel. We have been constrained to pass a detailed order, in view of the [CASE NUMBER] tendency of the Advocates in the High Court to file review petitions, before challenging the order before the Supreme Court in SLP. The High Court has very limited jurisdiction to review its own orders. The parameters within which such jurisdiction is to be exercised, has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case [PRECEDENT] wherein it has been observed as under:-
"3.The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exhibits A/1 and A/3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, 'settlement' made in favour of the different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in [PRECEDENT] there is nothing in [SECTION] of the [ACT] to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definite limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court."
[CASE NUMBER] (Emphasis Supplied).
Therefore, even if the counsel for the petitioner was of the opinion that our order dated 18.7.2005 was erroneous, the same ought to have been challenged by adopting the normal remedy of appeal. There were no justifiable grounds for filing the Review Petition."
48 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT], has held (in para-13, relevant portion) in the following terms:-
"13.The final submission of Shri [ENTITY] was that several other questions were raised in the writ petition before the High Court but they were not considered. We attach no significance to this submission. It is not unusual for parties and counsel to raise innumerable grounds in the petitions and memoranda of appeal etc., but, later, confine themselves , in the course of argument to a few only of those grounds , obviously because the rest of the grounds are considered even by them to be untenable. No party or counsel is thereafter entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered. If indeed any ground which was argued was not considered it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification. "
49 In [PRECEDENT], the following has been held:-
" When an appeal/special leave petition is [CASE NUMBER] dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER], a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, [ENTITY],J., was a member, has held as under:
"The record of the appeal indicates that Shri [ENTITY] was heard and decided on merits. The Review Petition has been filed by Shri [ENTITY] who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. "
50 Even in the present case, the counsel, through whom the review application has been filed, was not the counsel, who drafted the writ petition or addressed arguments. 51 From the above, it transpires that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT]'s case (supra), has held that no party or counsel is entitled to make a grievance that the grounds not argued were not considered. If indeed any [CASE NUMBER] ground which was argued was not considered, it should be open to the party aggrieved to draw the attention of the court making the order to it by filing a proper application for review or clarification.
52 A perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition, in the present case, clearly indicate that the writ petition was filed only in context of jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner in entertaining the second revision petition. The pleadings are in context of interpretation of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act. There is no challenge to the orders of Commissioner or Financial Commissioner, on merits.
53 So far as zimni orders are concerned, liberty was indeed given to the petitioner to place on record documents, vide order dated 26.5.2008. An application ([CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER]) was filed for permission to place on record revenue record as Annexures P-6 to P-9. The application was allowed vide order dated 5.10.2010. The application neither explains the documents nor shows the reason for reliance thereupon. Merely because the documents were brought on record, would not be sufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice, which require that the respondents are put to notice of the specific stand of the petitioner in challenge to orders (Annexures P-3 and P-4). 54 The arguments addressed by the counsel then appearing for the writ petitioner have been dealt with in the decision under review. The court, merely because the [CASE NUMBER] documents had been placed on record, could not make out a case for the petitioner, because no relevant facts in relation to the documents were pleaded in the writ petition. No relevant notice of the said stand was given to the respondents. 55 The very fact that the writ petition is sought to be amended by way of the applications accompanying the review application, so as to add grounds in challenge to the impugned orders, on merits, indicates the conduct of the applicant- petitioner. During the period when the petition was pending, no such application for amendment was filed. It appears that the applicant-petitioner was very confident of the legal ground in relation to jurisdiction and, therefore, no such steps, at the relevant time were taken. In my considered opinion, while taking into account the amendment sought to be brought in the writ petition, the application for review cannot be allowed. Since the writ petition could not have been allowed, for lack of pleadings, surely, such a ground cannot be made a ground for review of the decision rendered on the limited arguments addressed on the available pleadings.
56 There must be an end to every lis. All decisions are rendered in context of arguments addressed, which are required to be in context of pleadings. In the case in hand, the arguments addressed have been dealt with and decision rendered. A review is to be filed in the context of the decision. A decision cannot be reviewed while taking into account amendment sought in the main writ petition by way of addition [CASE NUMBER] of ground(s) in challenge to the impugned order(s). If such a course is allowed, there shall be no end to a lis. The value of cause has to be seen by the court in context of pleadings and arguments addressed. Justice is delivered by way of rendering decisions and the same cannot be dehors the pleadings. This court cannot in a writ petition which is not in public interest, embark upon inquiry and decide.
57 The applicant-petitioner has not been able to show any reason for review, in terms of law governing scope of review, in context of the decision rendered in writ jurisdiction. 58 The review application is, accordingly, dismissed.
OCTOBER 21, 2011 ( [ENTITY] ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?