Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 522 of 2010
Appellant :- Surendra Pratap Pracheta
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Home Sec. Lko. And Othes
Counsel for Appellant :- S.P. Giri,J.N. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2020 Heard on the application under section 5 of Limitation Act.
There is delay of 3299 days in filing the review application. Reason of delay has been given and as otherwise we have considered the review application on its merit, the delay in filing the same is condoned.
The application is allowed.
Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No. 2 of 2020 The review application has been filed against the judgment dated 09.08.2011 by which the appeal preferred by the review applicant was dismissed.
It is a case where the applicant/appellant was selected on the post of constable but finding a false affidavit, he was terminated from service. The applicant/appellant did not disclose pendency of the criminal case registered in the year 2001 while submitting an affidavit in the year 2006. The Division Bench found knowledge of the pendency of criminal case to the review applicant and accordingly finding default to be deliberate, the appeal preferred by the applicant/appellant was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that pndency of the criminal case was not in the knowledge of the applicant/appellant, thus, it could not be disclosed while submitting the affidavit. The prayer is accordingly to review the judgment with acceptance of the review application.
We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant/appellant.
The review application has been filed without showing any material irregularity on the face of record. The review application cannot be filed for re-appreciation of finding. The argument raised herein was raised before this Court while pressing the appeal and has been considered. The statement that the review applicant was not knowing about the criminal case was not accepted by the Court. In reference to the material on record, learned Division Bench found that criminal case proceeded on several occasions and in order to enforce the attendance of the accused, coercive steps were also taken. Thus, it cannot be presumed that applicant had no knowledge about the pendency of the criminal case. Review application cannot be filed for re-appreciation of the aforesaid finding as it cannot be a substitute of the Appellate Court. The applicant had otherwise approached the Supreme Court for challenge to the judgment but appeal therein was withdrawn with liberty to file a review.
In view of the above, the applicant was having an opportunity to seek re- appreciation of the finding in appeal before the Apex Court but having withdrawn the SLP, the prayer for re-appreciation cannot be made in the review application.
Thus, we find review application to be devoid of merit and otherwise this Court has very limited jurisdiction in the review application. According, the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Madhurima
(Rajendra Kumar-IV, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, ACJ.)