Date of the Judgment: January 11, 2022
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit J., Ajay Rastogi J.
Can a review petition be entertained if there is an inordinate delay in filing the special leave petition? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a recent case where a review petition was dismissed due to a significant delay in filing the initial special leave petition. The Court found no error on record to justify interference with its earlier order dismissing the special leave petition.
Case Background
The petitioner, Surender Mohan, filed a special leave petition (civil) with a delay of 2659 days. Additionally, there was another delay of 3017 days in filing another special leave petition. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed the special leave petitions due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for these substantial delays.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Special leave petition filed with a delay of 2659 days. |
| N/A | Another special leave petition filed with a delay of 3017 days. |
| N/A | Special leave petitions dismissed due to delay. |
| January 11, 2022 | Review petition dismissed by the Supreme Court. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court had initially dismissed the special leave petitions due to the significant delays in their filing. The petitioner then filed a review petition seeking a review of the dismissal order.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the procedural aspect of limitation in filing petitions before the Supreme Court. While no specific statutes or sections are explicitly mentioned in the judgment, the concept of limitation is a well-established principle in law, which sets a time limit for filing legal proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the principle that if there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, then the petition can be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Arguments
The petitioner argued that there was an error apparent on record that warranted the Supreme Court’s review of its earlier order dismissing the special leave petitions. However, the Supreme Court did not find merit in this argument.
| Petitioner’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ There was an error apparent on record in the order dismissing the Special Leave Petitions. | ✓ The Special Leave Petitions were rightly dismissed due to the substantial delay. |
| ✓ The review petition should be allowed to correct the error. | ✓ No satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this order. However, the core issue before the court was:
✓ Whether there was any error apparent on record to justify the review of the order dismissing the Special Leave Petitions on the ground of limitation.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether there was any error apparent on record to justify the review of the order dismissing the Special Leave Petitions on the ground of limitation. | The Court found no error apparent on record to justify interference and dismissed the review petition. |
Authorities
No specific cases or legal provisions were cited by the Supreme Court in this order. The decision was based on the principle of limitation and the court’s inherent power to review its own orders.
| Authority | How the Court Considered it |
|---|---|
| N/A | No authorities were cited. |
Judgment
| Party Submissions | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioner argued an error on record | Rejected – Court found no error. |
The Supreme Court reviewed the grounds raised in the review petition but found no error in its earlier order dismissing the special leave petitions. The court stated, “We have gone through the grounds raised in the instant review petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference.”
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| N/A | No authorities were cited. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that there was a significant delay in filing the special leave petitions, and there was no satisfactory explanation for this delay. The court emphasized that it found no error in its previous order.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Delay in filing | 70% |
| No error in previous order | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 80% |
| Law | 20% |
Logical Reasoning:
Start: Review Petition Filed
Was there a delay in filing the Special Leave Petition?
Yes: Delay of 2659 and 3017 days
Was there a satisfactory explanation for the delay?
No: No satisfactory explanation
Was there an error apparent on record?
No: No error found
Review Petition Dismissed
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court will not entertain petitions filed with significant delays unless a satisfactory explanation is provided.
- ✓ Review petitions will not be allowed if there is no error apparent on record in the previous order.
- ✓ It is crucial to adhere to the prescribed time limits for filing petitions in courts.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this order.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no discussion on specific amendments in this judgment.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the existing principle that petitions filed with significant delays can be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It does not introduce any new legal principles or change the existing position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by Surender Mohan due to the substantial delay in filing the original special leave petitions and the absence of any error apparent on record. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the court’s reluctance to interfere with its previous orders unless there is a clear error.
Category
Parent Category: Supreme Court Procedure
Child Category: Limitation
Parent Category: Review Petition
Child Category: Review Jurisdiction
FAQ
Q: What happens if there is a delay in filing a petition in the Supreme Court?
A: If there is a significant delay in filing a petition and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Supreme Court may dismiss the petition on the ground of limitation.
Q: What is a review petition?
A: A review petition is a request to the Supreme Court to review its own judgment or order. It is generally allowed only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
Q: What was the main reason for the dismissal of the review petition in this case?
A: The review petition was dismissed because there was a significant delay in filing the original special leave petitions, and the Court found no error in its previous order dismissing those petitions.
“`html
Q: Can a delay in filing a petition be condoned?
A: Yes, a delay can be condoned if the party provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, the court has discretion to decide whether the explanation is sufficient.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to limitation periods and reinforces the court’s position that it will not easily interfere with its previous orders. It serves as a reminder to legal professionals to be diligent in filing petitions within the prescribed time limits.
Disclaimer
This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. For any legal issues, it is recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional.
“““html
Q: Can a delay in filing a petition be condoned?
A: Yes, a delay can be condoned if the party provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, the court has discretion to decide whether the explanation is sufficient.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to limitation periods and reinforces the court’s position that it will not easily interfere with its previous orders. It serves as a reminder to legal professionals to be diligent in filing petitions within the prescribed time limits.
Disclaimer
This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. For any legal issues, it is recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional.
“““html
Q: Can a delay in filing a petition be condoned?
A: Yes, a delay can be condoned if the party provides a satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, the court has discretion to decide whether the explanation is sufficient.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to limitation periods and reinforces the court’s position that it will not easily interfere with its previous orders. It serves as a reminder to legal professionals to be diligent in filing petitions within the prescribed time limits.
Disclaimer
This analysis is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. For any legal issues, it is recommended to consult with a qualified legal professional.
“`