Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner.
The present review petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that explanation regarding delay and laches have been properly explained and, therefore, there was no delay in challenging the order of 8.10.2004 by means of which juvenility of the review petitioner has been determined. He further submits that in Section 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the 'Act') no limitation is provided, therefore, the revision cannot be said to be suffering from delay and laches.
Juvenility of the review petitioner already stood determined by means of order of 8.10.2004 and as and when trial has started a fresh attempt was made to get redetermine the juvenility by an application being moved before the trial court. The said application was completely in derogation of Section 49(2) of the Act and, therefore, re-determination, if any, as pleaded by the counsel for the review petitioner has rightly been rejected by the trial court. Even on merit the review petitioner was not found to be juvenile.
Further the contention of review petitioner that in Section 53 of the Act no limitation is provided, cannot be accepted as it has to be seen by the court as to whether the review petitioner has been careful in challenging the order within the reasonable time, which is expected of a normal person. Since that has not been done and an attempt has been made to get the order set aside after much delay i.e. in 2008 the contention of the review petitioner cannot be accepted and is hereby rejected.
Moreover, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in (1995) 1 S.C.C. 170, Meera Bhanja (Smt.) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt.) and (1997) 8 S.C.C. 715, Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others has held that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is very limited and this jurisdiction can be invoked only, if there is mistake or error apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, there is no error apparent on the face of record of the judgment.
In this view of the matter, no interference is required by this Court to review the judgment and order dated 21.8.2008.
Review petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010 Rao/-