Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SHIV CHARAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Decided
17 November 2006
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 143 · 2006 INSC 861
Also cited as
  • (2007) 15 SCC 370 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted.

p. 144, margin A

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application for review filed in respect of the order in CWP No. l 7615 of 200 l which was dismissed on 12.8.2005. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner was absent for about three years. The High Court found the writ petitioner to be a habitual absentee and, therefore, felt that he did not deserve any relief in the quantum of punishment. It is to be noted that while issuing notice on 6.11.200 l the following order had been passed by the High Court:

p. 144, margin A

"Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments stated that the petitioner has put in ten years of service and he has been deprived of the retiral benefits in view of the impugned order. He confines the prayer in the writ petition only to the quantum of punishment."

p. 144, margin C

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court is not right in holding that the review petition was not entertainable in view of the materials which were placed for consideration. Those materials clearly show that the High Court did not take note of the correct factual position while dismissing the writ petition.

p. 144, margin D

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Court has rightly held that the review petition was not maintainable.

p. 144, margin E

Challenge ·in this appeal is only to the order passed in the review application. Such an appeal is not maintainable.

p. 144, margin E

In Shanker Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput, [1994] 2 sec 753 it was observed as follows:

p. 144, margin E

"The appeal is obviously incompetent. It is against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the application for review of a judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge, who seems to have retired in the meantime. It is not against the basic judgment. Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an appeal against the order of the court rejecting the review. On this basis, we reject the appeal. No cost.

p. 144, margin E

1

A. No. l/93 (Application for substitution). No orders are necessary in view of the rejection of the appeal." The position has been re-iterated in Suseel Finance & leasing Co. v. M. lata and Ors., [2004] 13 SCC 675 and M.N. Haider and Ors. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors., [2004] 13 sec 677. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the basic order dated 20.8.2004 passed by the High Court has been challenged by filing a special leave petition on 9.10.2006. However, dismissal of this present appeal shall not stand on the way of consideration of the Special Leave Petition stated to have been filed on 9.10.2006. The same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 145, margin A