Cri.
Misc. Application in Special Criminal Application No.340 of 2010 has been filed for review of the order dated 12-8-2010 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.340 of 2010 whereby Special Criminal Application preferred by the applicant to direct the learned Family Court to grant maintenance for the period from 1-9-2004 to 9-2-2005 was rejected.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12-8-2010 passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.340 of 2010, the present applicant preferred SLP (Criminal) No.7502 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, passed the following order vide order dated 26-9-2011:
"Delay condoned.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave of the Court to file Review Petition before the High Court, he may do so in terms of the prayer made.
However, it is made clear that liberty given to the petitioners to file review petition shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of such review petition, if filed."
It is the aforesaid order which is giving rise to prefer present application.
Heard party-in-person, applicant No.1-Jaiminiben Hiren Vyas for the applicants and learned APP, Ms.Krina Calla for the respondent No.2-State. The board shows that notice issued on the respondent No.1 is not received back.
This Court is aware of the settled position of law that this court is having inherent power to review its own order. However, the power of review should be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced at the time when the order was made. It can also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. However, review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
Original record was again gone through by this Court. Rojkam of the trial court clearly shows that application at Exh.15 was presented on 9th March, 2005. Order passed by the trial court at Exh.15 also shows that application was placed on 9th March, 2005 and it was ordered to 'fix for hearing'. Endorsement of the learned advocate on the application also shows that he received the copy on 9th March, 2005. However, merely the application mentions the date as 1st September, 2004 would not mean that application was presented on the same day. Thus, it is obvious that from the records as well as order passed by the court below that the application for maintenance was filed on 9th March, 2005 and hence, no error has been committed by the trial court while passing the order. Moreover, no new evidence has to be produced which could not be produced at the time when the order was passed by this Court.
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no mistake has been committed by this Court nor was there any mistake apparent on the face of the record requiring interference by this Court in this application seeking review.
Apart from the above, when the applicants have fought out the litigation upto the Apex Court level where they have failed at the stage of admission itself, this Court is of the opinion that they cannot be permitted to have a second round of litigation by way of present application especially when order of this Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Under the circumstances, this application is rejected. Notice is discharged.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan Top