Civil Application No.526 of 2019 in Civil Application (Review) No.7 of 2019.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/modification-of-sentence-imposed-in-criminal-case/
Fernandes, learned Counsel submits that matter be placed after 5th October, 2019.
The appellant preferred 3 an appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the court of District Judge at Margao, Goa, registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.83 of 2013, titled “Mr. It would be relevant to note that Justice Patel 4 at the relevant time was sitting at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court.
(Civil) Application No.526 of 2019 with the prayer that the Civil Review Application No.7 of 2019 be ordered to be transferred and be placed before Justice G.S. Application for review in Court consisting of two or more judges.- Where the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judge, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at the time when the application for a review is presented, and is not or are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/reversal-of-acquittal-high-court-convicts-accused-in-murder-case/
Application for review in Court consisting of two or more Judges.- Where the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judges who passed the decree or 7 made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue be attached to the Court at the time when the application for a review is presented, and is not or are not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of two months next after application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, and no other Judge or Judges of the Court shall hear the same: Provided that if in the case of a decree or order passed by a Division Bench of two or more Judges of the High Court sitting at any place in the State of Maharashtra, all the said Judges are not available for sitting together at one place when the review application is ready for hearing, the application may be heard by a Division Bench of two or more Judges, at least one of whom, if available, should be the Judge who had passed the decree or order a review of which is applied for.” Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules is reproduced below: “3.(1)
An application for review or for amendment of an order or a decree, for speaking to the minutes passed by a Single Judge of this Court shall be placed before that Judge: provided, however, where such Judge has ceased to be the Judge of the High Court or has ceased to sit at the particular Bench, such application shall be placed before the regular Court of the Single Judge dealing with the category of matters to which the proceedings relates as for example: – (a) Writ petition, if the original order had been passed in a Writ Petition; (b) First Appeals, if the original order had been passed in any other Civil matters; (c) Criminal Appeals, if the original order had been passed in any Criminal matters; Provided that, where the Single Judge concerned is not available for the time being by reason of he being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid such application shall be placed before the Court of Single Judge to which the matter may be assigned by the order of the Honourable Chief Justice.” Shri Dewan has sought to impress upon us by analyzing Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules to state and to submit that as Justice Patel was no longer sitting at the Goa Bench, Review Petition had to be heard by the Judge having roster of the said categories of the matters to which the proceedings relate i.e.
However, we are of the view that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, once an application was preferred by any of the parties that 11 a review may be heard by the Judge who had decided the matter and had passed the order from which the review arose, the matter ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than order being passed on the judicial side.
The Chief Justice, being the master of roster and being conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules, the learned single Judge ought not to have dealt with the application dated 16.07.2009 (Misc.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/modifying-sentence-for-delayed-trial-a-legal-analysis/
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
Case Title: SURESH G. RAMNANI Vs. AURELIA ANA DE PIEDADE MIRNADA @ ARIYA ALVARES (DEAD THR. LRS) (2022 INSC 1196)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008293-008293 / 2022
