1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Misc. Civil Application [Review] St. No.11047 of 2008 IN Writ Petition No.592 of 2008 [pending] Smt. Shobha Bajirao Damodar, Headmistress, Savitribai Fuley Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Kapsi Road, Taluka & Distt. Akola. .... Applicant. [Org. Respdt. No.1] Versus 1. Triratna Krida & Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through its President Shri Shyamrao Kisan Chavan, Kapsi Road, Tah. & Distt. Akola. .... [Org. Petitioner] 2. Shri Mahadev Govindrao Raut, resident of Rautwadi, Akola. 3. Shri Ramdas Narayan Murhekar, resident of Kapsi, Tah. & Distt. Akola. ..... Respondents. .....[org. Respondents] ***** Mr. DCR Mishra, Adv., for the applicant – original respondent no.1. Mr. Shirsat, Adv., for the original petitioner. ***** 2 CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J. Date : 17th October,2008. O R A L O R D E R : 1. By this application, original respondent no.1 is seeking review of Order passed by this Court on 6th May, 2008 in Writ Petition No. 592 of 2008. 2. Heard. 3. The grounds for review, as averred in the application, are revolving around a 'fact' that :- [a] The alleged President – Shri Shyamrao Kisan Chavan has no authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, as there are groups in the Management and Change Report proceedings are pending. [b] That the request made by alleged President – Shri Shyamrao Kisan Chavan seeking permission to suspend the respondent no.1 – present applicant is also rejected, as the status of Shri Chavan, acting President of the Society, was in dispute. [c] That the interim relief should not have been granted by this Court while admitting the petition in the aforesaid factual matrix. 3 4. Copy of alleged order of refusal of permission for suspension was not placed on record, however, said aspect is repeated during oral submissions. 5. The Farad Orders in Writ Petition No. 592 of 2008 indicate that on 2nd April, 2008, the petition was ready for hearing in view of amendment, additional paper-book, service of copies thereof etc., and the Writ Petition was then ordered to be listed on 4th April, 2008, however, the petition was listed on 7th April, 2008, and at the request of petitioner's Advocate, it was adjourned. 6. At the request of present applicant's Advocate, hearing was adjourned on four occasions without any reply being filed. 7. According to learned Adv. Mr. Shirsat for the writ petitioner, the adjournments were sought after hearing had occurred for considerable durations, and on seeing that Court had indicated that Writ Petition would be entertained with interim relief. 8. Adv. Mr. Shirsat then urged that this Court had passed order dated 6th May, 2008 after hearing oral 4 submissions of the petitioner and the respondents, and then granted Rule and interim relief in terms of Prayer Clause (ii), and learned Advocate Mr. A.M. Ghare had also waived service for respondent no.1. 9. It is seen that thereafter, i.e., after interim order was passed, the present applicant has changed Advocate, and has filed reply on 24th June, 2008 and brought on record the factual grounds, such as existence of disputes in the Management, and made efforts by filing application for vacation of stay/modification of interim order. The application for vacation of stay is disposed with liberty to the respondent no.1 to move for that purpose appropriately. 10. It is in the aforesaid background and for the said purpose, present application for review is filed. 11. In the present application, amongst other grounds as to dispute inter se the Management, want of authority with the person who represents the Society as a President is urged to be a crucial ground, stating that these matters go to the root. 5 12. It is clear that at the time of admission-hearing when the order of Rule and interim relief was passed, this Court was led by the facts as found in the petition and annexures thereto. These facts so emerging had gone unchallenged in spite of four adjournments, and the petition was heard in absence of any traverse. 13. It is not the case of respondent no.1 – present applicant that the oral or other request for further adjournment and request for further time to file reply was made, but was declined by the Court. 14. Any cause, much less, a reasonable cause, is shown as to why reply to the Writ Petition was not, or could not be filed. 15. It cannot be speculated as to what would have been the decision, had the material now brought on record by the present applicant by filing an Affidavit-in-Reply would have been before this Court when order sought to be reviewed was passed. 16. In these circumstances, the applicant-respondent no.1 cannot blame anyone, except herself, for failing to file reply. 6 17. Moreover, the fact that changing the Advocate and then filing an application for review is definitely liable to be deprecated. Applicant's learned Advocate earlier representing the applicant too is not available who could be a right person to represent and vouch for as to what this Court has found and has noted in paras 6 to 16 foregoing. 18. At the hearing, this Court has expressed gross dissatisfaction and called upon learned Advocate for applicant to show as to why stern action by saddling heavy costs on the applicant for resorting to applying for review on changing Advocate when the name of earlier Advocate still continues on record, should not be taken. 19. Learned Adv. Mr. DCR Mishra states that this being first occasion of the type, the Court may not take a serious view of the matter, and further that the client may have own difficulties in doing so. The tenor of submission is that learned Advocate, who was appearing earlier, was indicated by the respondent no.1 – present applicant that he should not conduct the case. These oral submissions are not supported by any material on record. It is not demonstrated that power of Advocate was withdrawn, cancelled or terminated. If applicant had any difference of opinion or 7 conflict with Advocate, who had appeared for her and argued, she would have appeared before Court to cancel the Vakalatnama or taken such steps as available in law. Nothing of this type is brought on record, which would justify change of Advocate on facts to file a Review Application. Yet learned Advocate has argued with vigour. 20. It is seen that learned Advocate has no remorse for the conduct of the client who has changed Advocate and filed a Review Application. Learned Advocate seems to have fallen prey to the unscrupulous tendency of the litigant. 21. This Court does not intend to penalise learned Advocate in any manner, but the litigant cannot go unchastised. 22. This tendency of litigants needs to be deprecated as is done by Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of its judgment in case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another [AIR 1997 SC 1005], as such instances are seen recurring. It would be useful to recall what Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the case which is quoted for ready reference as below :- “It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for 8 the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U. K. Sugar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as “application for clarification”, on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is 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. .....” “2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice.” “3. The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- as it is an abuse of the process of Court in derogation of healthy practice; The amount should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from today. .....” 23. Keeping in line with what Hon'ble Apex Court has done in the case [cited supra], and giving latitude to the applicant, considering her status as an employee in a 9 school, the present applicant deserves to be saddled with a cost of Rs.5000/- [rupees five thousand only], which be paid to the Writ Petitioner. 24. Review Application, therefore, does not call for interference, and is dismissed. JUDGE -0-0-0-0- |hedau|