-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 62 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2332 OF 2008 Shashi Gupta ... Petitioner vs. Union of India and others ...Respondents Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara with Mr. Vikas Mahangare for the petitioner. Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. N.R. Prajapati and Mr. D.A. Dubey for respondent No.1. Mr. R.R. Gade, instructed by M/s. R.R. Gade & Associates, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: APRIL 24, 2009. P.C. This is an absolutely misconceived petition filed by the petitioner. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length disposed of the writ petition on 8th September, 2008, whereby this Court rejected the said petition. The petitioner has thereafter filed this review petition which is circulated before us today. 2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this review petition was filed as back as on 7th October, 2008, and copy of the same has been given to the learned counsel -2- for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 today only. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had furnished the copy in the past . 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court has observed in the order that the counsel for the petitioner made reckless statement before the Division Bench of this Court and on that statement, report from the DRAT was called for. He submitted that he had made the statement through oversight . In view of the detailed observations in paras 4 and 5 of the order, we do not find any ground for reviewing our order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the challenge of the petitioner to the provisions of the Securitisation Act has been negatived by this Court relying on the judgment of the Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India ( 2004) 4 SCC 311. According to him, in view of the subsequent amendment in the Act, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, in our original order we have already permitted the petitioner to take all the available points in the pending matter before DRAT as the appeal of the petitioner is pending and DRAT is seized of the matter. Even if according to the petitioner this Court had committed any error of law, the error of law itself may not be a ground for reviewing of the order under Order 47 of the CPC. -3- 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the appeal against the order of the DRT is pending before the DRAT. If the petitioner has any grievance, he can ventilate his grievance before the DRAT. The learned counsel has further submitted that till the DRAT decides the appeal, status quo may be granted. In our view, since the appeal is pending before the DRAT, review petition is not the appropriate remedy and it is for the petitioner to move the DRAT for appropriate reliefs. The prayers thus sought for are absolutely misconceived. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to argue this review petition as if he was arguing the main writ petition. In our view, this review petition is thoroughly misconceived. Considering the aforesaid aspect, this review petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 15,000/-. 7. Petitioner is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount with the DRAT within a period of one week and on such deposit, the Bank shall be entitled to withdraw the same unconditionally. 8. Before parting with this order, this Court expresses its displeasure the way in which the learned counsel for the petitioner has conducted the present proceedings. He submitted that he is practicing in different Courts since last 25 years. If that is so, it is most unfortunate that the learned counsel -4- has not shown any restraint while submitting his arguments before the Court. It is expected of the counsel to advance his arguments in a dignified manner and not the way he has conducted the proceedings before us today. Both the learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that the way in which the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his arguments, this Court may take a serious view of the matter. We leave the matter as it is. An advocate is an officer of the Court and he is not a mouthpiece of his client and, therefore, while arguing the matter, the decorum and dignity of the Court has to be maintained which unfortunately has not done by the counsel for the petitioner. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has placed a copy of the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the DRAT. A copy of this order is also shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner and he stated that before the DRAT he had tendered unconditional apology. The order passed by the DRAT reads thus: “The matter had been circulated on behalf of the appellant for obtaining urgent order. After hearing the learned advocate for the appellant for more than 15 minutes he was told that the order for restoration of premises cannot be granted at ad-interim stage when the matter was moved on praecipe. He thereafter -5- insisted that I should hear him fully before passing the order and started repeatedly shouting at the top of his voice that I was biased against him. Hence, issue show cause notice to the advocate Mr. Mathew Nedumpara as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for repeatedly alleging in the open court that I was biased against him, returnable on 14/11/2008. After sometime the said advocate again came back to the court room and tendered unconditional apology for what he alleged earlier in the court room stating that he has highest regard for me. Hence, the apology tendered by the said advocate is accepted. In the circumstances, show cause notice directed to be issued to the said advocate for initiating contempt proceeding against him is dropped.” Be that as it may, the manner in which the petitioner's advocate conducted the proceedings was not proper and the learned Counsel should have argued the matter objectively by exhibiting proper conduct. However, with a fond hope that the Counsel may improve his behaviour in future, we are not inclined to adopt any proceedings at this stage. 10. We have also gone through the review petition. In our view, no ground to review our order is made out. Review petition is accordingly rejected with the cost as quantified above. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. -6- A.A. SAYED, J.