Case: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others

The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the court of the Judicial Commissioner, Manipur, challenging the orders dated August 11, 1961 and September 30, 1961 of the Chief Commissioner of Manipur. The substance of his complaint was that the Chief Commissioner had permitted, by these orders, the settlement of part of the public road on respondents 1 to 4, thereby preventing the petitioners free access to the public road from the adjoining land belonging to the petitioner on which his homestead was situated. The writ petition was contested on various grounds. By his judgment dated May 25, 1965, the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the writ petition on the ground that the settlement of land which was part of a public road was prohibited by the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, as well as the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1958. The learned Judicial Commissioner who decided the writ petition was Shri Rajvi Roop Singh, JC. Thereafter, on July 2, 1965, respondent 1 to 4 filed an application for review purporting to be under Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code. The application for review was allowed, the earlier order dated May 25, 1965 was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed by Shri C. Jagannadhacharyulu, JC, who succeeded Shri Rajvi Roop Singh as Judicial Commissioner.

Reasoning:
4. In the present case both the grounds on which the review was allowed were hardly grounds for review. That the two documents which were part of the record were not considered by the Court at the time of issue of a writ under Article 226 cannot be a ground for review especially when the two documents were not even relied upon by the parties in the affidavits filed before the Court in the proceedings under Article 226. Again that several instead of one writ petition should have been filed is a mere question of procedure which certainly would not justify a review. We are, therefore, of the view that the Judicial Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in allowing the review.