The Supreme Court has urged High Courts across the country to dispose of review petitions expeditiously to avoid litigants using the same as guise to seek condonation of delay..The direction was issued by a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Mohan M Shantanagoudar on March 3 in an appeal against a judgment of the Kerala High Court. Advocates Renjith Marar and Lakshmi Kaimal appeared for the petitioner..The case was a challenge to a judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in 2012 and an order of 2016 passed by the same court in the review petition against the 2012 judgment..The Supreme Court in its judgment observed that it would have ordinarily dismissed the petition with a short order but for certain circumstances which “impel us to state something more”..It then pointed out at the time taken for disposing of the review petition – four long years..“We are really not concerned with the entertaining of an application for review with some delay, but what is perplexing is that the review petition preferred in 2012, was kept pending for almost four years and, thereafter, the High Court has dismissed the same…..In the case at hand, be it clearly stated, we are really not concerned with the exercise of the power of review and its limitation by the court. We are concerned with the delay in disposal of the application for review which was kept pending for a span of four years.”.The Court said that High Courts have to endeavour to dispose of review petitions as expeditiously as possible..“An endeavour has to be made by the High Courts to dispose of the applications for review with expediency. It is the duty and obligation of a litigant to file a review and not to keep it 7 defective as if a defective petition can be allowed to remain on life support, as per his desire. It is the obligation of the counsel filing an application for review to cure or remove the defects at the earliest. The prescription of limitation for filing an application for review has its own sanctity.”.The Court also said the Registry of High Courts have a duty to place review petitions before the Bench with promptitude..“The Registry of the High Courts has a duty to place the matter before the Judge/Bench with defects so that there can be pre-emptory orders for removal of defects…..Though we do not intend to fix any time limit, it has to be the duty of the Registry of every High Court to place the matter before the concerned Judge/Bench so that the review application can be dealt with in quite promptitude. If a notice is required to be issued to the opposite party in the application for review, a specific date can be given on which day the matter can be dealt with in accordance with law. A reasonable period can be spent for disposal of the review, but definitely not four years.”.There was also word of caution for the High Courts against procrastination by litigants..“There may be absence of diligence on the part of the litigant, but the Registry of the High Courts is required to be vigilant. Procrastination of litigation in this manner is nothing but a subterfuge taken recourse to in a manner that can epitomize “cleverness” in its conventional sense. We say no more in this regard. We request the High Courts not to keep the applications for review pending as that is likely to delay the matter in 8 every court and also embolden the likes of the petitioner to take a stand intelligently depicting the same in the application for condonation of delay.”.The Court has directed that the copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of every High Court..Read the full order below.
The Supreme Court has urged High Courts across the country to dispose of review petitions expeditiously to avoid litigants using the same as guise to seek condonation of delay..The direction was issued by a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Mohan M Shantanagoudar on March 3 in an appeal against a judgment of the Kerala High Court. Advocates Renjith Marar and Lakshmi Kaimal appeared for the petitioner..The case was a challenge to a judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in 2012 and an order of 2016 passed by the same court in the review petition against the 2012 judgment..The Supreme Court in its judgment observed that it would have ordinarily dismissed the petition with a short order but for certain circumstances which “impel us to state something more”..It then pointed out at the time taken for disposing of the review petition – four long years..“We are really not concerned with the entertaining of an application for review with some delay, but what is perplexing is that the review petition preferred in 2012, was kept pending for almost four years and, thereafter, the High Court has dismissed the same…..In the case at hand, be it clearly stated, we are really not concerned with the exercise of the power of review and its limitation by the court. We are concerned with the delay in disposal of the application for review which was kept pending for a span of four years.”.The Court said that High Courts have to endeavour to dispose of review petitions as expeditiously as possible..“An endeavour has to be made by the High Courts to dispose of the applications for review with expediency. It is the duty and obligation of a litigant to file a review and not to keep it 7 defective as if a defective petition can be allowed to remain on life support, as per his desire. It is the obligation of the counsel filing an application for review to cure or remove the defects at the earliest. The prescription of limitation for filing an application for review has its own sanctity.”.The Court also said the Registry of High Courts have a duty to place review petitions before the Bench with promptitude..“The Registry of the High Courts has a duty to place the matter before the Judge/Bench with defects so that there can be pre-emptory orders for removal of defects…..Though we do not intend to fix any time limit, it has to be the duty of the Registry of every High Court to place the matter before the concerned Judge/Bench so that the review application can be dealt with in quite promptitude. If a notice is required to be issued to the opposite party in the application for review, a specific date can be given on which day the matter can be dealt with in accordance with law. A reasonable period can be spent for disposal of the review, but definitely not four years.”.There was also word of caution for the High Courts against procrastination by litigants..“There may be absence of diligence on the part of the litigant, but the Registry of the High Courts is required to be vigilant. Procrastination of litigation in this manner is nothing but a subterfuge taken recourse to in a manner that can epitomize “cleverness” in its conventional sense. We say no more in this regard. We request the High Courts not to keep the applications for review pending as that is likely to delay the matter in 8 every court and also embolden the likes of the petitioner to take a stand intelligently depicting the same in the application for condonation of delay.”.The Court has directed that the copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of every High Court..Read the full order below.