Supreme Court clarifies procedure for review petitions: Suresh G. Ramnani vs. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda (2022) INSC 546

Date of the Judgment: 10 November 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 546

Judges: Aniruddha Bose, J., Vikram Nath, J.

Can a review petition be automatically transferred to the same judge who originally decided the case, even if they have moved to a different bench within the same High Court? The Supreme Court of India addressed this procedural question in a civil appeal concerning a property dispute. The core issue revolved around whether a review petition, filed against a judgment delivered by a judge of the Bombay High Court, should be heard by the same judge, who had since moved from the Goa bench to the Principal bench at Bombay, or by a judge currently sitting at the Goa bench. This judgment, delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath, clarifies the procedure for handling review petitions in such scenarios.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by the respondent on 11 January 1985, seeking a declaration and permanent injunction. The trial court decreed the suit on 26 August 2003. The appellant’s first appeal was initially dismissed on 22 April 2008, but a subsequent second appeal was allowed on 2 March 2012, and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate court. After remand, the first appeal was again dismissed on 9 July 2012. The appellant then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Bombay at Panaji, Goa. Justice G.S. Patel reserved judgment on 10 December 2017. Justice Patel was then sitting at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. However, he returned to the Principal Bench at Bombay on 24 October 2017. On 1 November 2017, clarifications were made before Justice Patel through hybrid mode regarding a potential settlement. The second appeal was allowed on 30 January 2019, with the judgment delivered virtually by Justice Patel from Bombay.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent filed a review petition on 12 February 2019, which was admitted on 4 March 2019. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application on 16 July 2019, requesting that the review petition be transferred to Justice G.S. Patel, who had delivered the original judgment but was now sitting at the Principal Bench in Bombay. This application was rejected by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan on 16 July 2019, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Maharashtra Government, which stipulates that a review application should be heard by the same judge who passed the original order, provided they are still attached to the court and not precluded by absence or other cause for a period of two months after the application. The amended provision states:
  
  “5. 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 made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue to 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.”
• Chapter XXX Rule 3(1) of the Bombay High Court Rules, which states that a review application against an order passed by a single judge should be placed before that judge. However, if the judge has ceased to be a judge of the High Court or has ceased to sit at the particular bench, the application should be placed before the regular court of the single judge dealing with the category of matters to which the proceedings relate. The rule states:
  
  “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.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that under Order 47 Rule 5 of the CPC, read with the High Court amendments for Maharashtra, the review petition should be heard by the same judge (Justice G.S. Patel) who passed the original order.
• The appellant contended that although Justice Patel had moved to the Principal Bench at Bombay, the availability of virtual hearing technology meant that he could still hear the review petition.
• The appellant relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Malthesh Gudda Pooja vs. State of Karnataka and Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India to support their argument that the review should be heard by the same judge.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that according to Chapter XXX Rule 3(1) of the Bombay High Court Rules, since Justice Patel was no longer sitting at the Goa Bench, the review petition should be heard by the judge currently hearing second appeals at the Goa Bench.
• The respondent argued that the rules were being followed correctly and that the appellant should not have brought the matter to the Supreme Court.
• The respondent distinguished the case of Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd., arguing that it pertained to the National Green Tribunal and not to the High Court.
• The respondent relied on the judgments in Maharashtra Housing & Development Authority vs. P V Anturkar and Ratanlal Nahata v. Nandita Bose.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but considered the core question of whether the review petition should be heard by the same judge who had passed the original order, even though that judge had moved to a different bench within the same High Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Malthesh Gudda Pooja vs. State of Karnataka [(2011)15 SCC 330], but did not explicitly state how it was used in its reasoning.
• The Court distinguished Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. versus Union of India [(2018) 18 SCC 257], stating that the said proceedings were relating to National Green Tribunal and the procedure prescribed therein.
• The Court did not explicitly mention how the judgments in Maharashtra Housing & Development Authority vs. P V Anturkar [(2009) 3 Mh Lj 266] and Ratanlal Nahata v. Nandita Bose [(1998) 3 CALLT 348 HC] were used in its reasoning.
• The Court interpreted Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Chapter XXX Rule 3(1) of the Bombay High Court Rules to determine the correct procedure for handling the review petition.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspects of the case. The Court emphasized that the Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster and has the authority to assign review petitions, especially in situations where the judge who passed the original order is no longer sitting at the same bench. The Court noted that the single judge should not have ruled on the application for transfer but should have referred the matter to the Chief Justice for administrative orders. This approach highlights the Court’s focus on proper procedure and the administrative authority of the Chief Justice in managing the roster.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (80%), focusing on the interpretation of procedural rules and the authority of the Chief Justice. Factual aspects of the case (20%) played a minor role in the Court’s reasoning.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court observed that the single judge should not have decided on the application but should have referred the matter to the Chief Justice. The Court stated, “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. Civil Application No.526 of 2019) , but should have referred the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice.” The Court further noted, “The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers this power on the Chief Justice to assign a particular matter to a single Judge for hearing of the review application where the single Judge concerned was not available for the time being by reason of being on leave or otherwise as aforesaid i.e. where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench.” The Court also stated, “We do not wish to go into the issue of interpreting the Rules in order to hold as to whether the review should be heard by Judge ‘A’ or any other Judge.”

Key Takeaways

• When a review petition is filed against a judgment delivered by a single judge, and that judge is no longer sitting at the same bench, the application for transfer should be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative orders.
• The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and has the authority to assign review petitions in such situations.
• Single judges should not decide on such transfer applications but should refer them to the Chief Justice.
• This judgment emphasizes the importance of proper procedure and the administrative authority of the Chief Justice in managing court proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the registry of the High Court to place the application (Misc. Civil Application No.526 of 2019) on the administrative side before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a review petition is filed against a judgment delivered by a single judge, and that judge is no longer sitting at the same bench, the application for transfer should be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative orders. This clarifies the procedure for handling review petitions in such scenarios and reinforces the administrative authority of the Chief Justice in assigning cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suresh G. Ramnani vs. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda clarifies the procedure for handling review petitions when the judge who passed the original order is no longer sitting at the same bench. The Court emphasized that the application for transfer should be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative orders, highlighting the Chief Justice’s role as the master of the roster. This decision ensures that review petitions are handled efficiently and in accordance with established procedures.

Category

Parent Category: Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Child Categories:

• Order 47, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908
• Review Petition
• Bombay High Court Rules
• Chief Justice Powers
• Judicial Roster

FAQ

Q: What is a review petition?
A: A review petition is a legal request to a court to reconsider its own judgment. It is usually filed when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for other sufficient reasons.

Q: What happens when the judge who passed the original judgment is not available at the same bench for a review petition?
A: According to this Supreme Court judgment, the application for transfer of the review petition should be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative orders. The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and has the authority to assign the review petition.

Q: Can a single judge decide on the transfer of a review petition in such cases?
A: No, a single judge should not decide on the transfer of a review petition in such cases. The application should be referred to the Chief Justice for administrative orders.

Q: What is the significance of the Chief Justice in this process?
A: The Chief Justice is the master of the roster and has the authority to assign review petitions, especially when the judge who passed the original order is no longer sitting at the same bench. This ensures that the review petition is handled efficiently and in accordance with established procedures.

Q: What is the key takeaway from this Supreme Court judgment?
A: The key takeaway is that when a review petition is filed against a judgment delivered by a single judge, and that judge is no longer sitting at the same bench, the application for transfer should be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for administrative orders. This clarifies the procedure for handling review petitions in such scenarios.