Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Review Petition for Failure to Raise Grievances Timely

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a review petition, citing the petitioners’ failure to raise their grievances at the appropriate stage of the litigation. The bench comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua and Justice Satyen Vaidya delivered the ruling on 31st May 2023.

The review petition challenged the validity of an office communication issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, H.P., which was earlier upheld by a learned Single Judge. The petitioners argued that the communication violated statutory Recruitment & Promotion Rules. However, the High Court observed that the review petitioners were not necessary parties before the writ court or the appellate court.

Justice Satyen Vaidya, in the judgment, stated, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the review petition on behalf of the review petitioners is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed.” The court further highlighted that the petitioners had been aware of the proceedings, including the pending appeals, but chose not to raise their grievances earlier, terming their conduct as lacking objectivity.

The Court emphasized the importance of fairness in the judicial process, stating, “Litigation should not be used as a game of hide and seek.” The bench further noted that the silence maintained by the review petitioners throughout the litigation process led to the dismissal of their petition.

This judgment reinforces the principle that parties in a legal dispute must actively participate and raise their concerns at the appropriate stages of the litigation. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of subsequent review petitions.

Decided on : 31-05-2023

BANDANA KUMARI AND OTHERS vs STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/31-May-23-BANDANA-KUMARI-Vs-State-Himachal-Pradesh-HC-1.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News