Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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