Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Power to Review - High Courts have inherent power to review their own judgments under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and through inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct errors. This power is recognized in various rulings, such as State of Punjab v. Naveen Mathew Philip (1979) and Thomas (Supra). 2023 4 Supreme 617, 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1005, 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57717
Procedure and Time Limits - Review petitions must be filed within prescribed time limits, typically 30 days as per rules (e.g., Rule 17 of the Rules of 1987, O 53 of the Rules of 2012). Courts have held that exceeding these time limits without valid reasons leads to rejection, emphasizing the importance of timely filing. For instance, delays beyond the stipulated period are generally not entertained unless justified convincingly. 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 369, 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1071,
DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR vs LEMBAGA RAYUAN PERANCANGAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
,DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR vs LEMBAGA RAYUAN PERANCANGAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
Same Judge or Court - When a review is sought, it should ideally be heard by the same Judge or Court that delivered the original judgment, especially if the Judge remains attached to the Court at the time of review application. This maintains procedural integrity and fairness. 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1153
Nature of Review vs. Appeal - Courts clarify that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-argue points already considered. The review power is limited to correcting apparent errors or errors of law/fact that could not have been previously noticed. An improper approach, such as treating review as an appeal, is impermissible. 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10158, 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1005
Review of Orders in Special Cases - In certain cases, High Courts may direct for fresh consideration of representations or orders, even without specific statutory provisions, especially under constitutional powers. This is exemplified in cases like High Court of Tripura v. and others. 2023 4 Supreme 617
Judicial Discretion and Limitations - Courts have emphasized that the power to review is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, considering factors like delay, grounds of review, and whether the points raised have been previously argued. Unreasonable delays or frivolous grounds lead to dismissal. 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 369, 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1071
The timeline for filing a High Court review petition is generally within 30 days from the date of the original order, with strict adherence to procedural rules. The same Judge or Court that delivered the original judgment should typically hear the review, and the review is limited to correcting errors, not re-appealing the case. Courts have consistently held that delays beyond prescribed limits without valid reasons result in rejection, reinforcing the importance of timely filings. While High Courts possess inherent review powers, these are to prevent miscarriage of justice, not to serve as appellate forums. Proper procedural adherence ensures the review process maintains its integrity and purpose.
References:- 2023 4 Supreme 617- 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10158- 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1153- 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 122- 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1071-
DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR vs LEMBAGA RAYUAN PERANCANGAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
-DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR vs LEMBAGA RAYUAN PERANCANGAN WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN & ANOR - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
- 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57717- 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1005
Filing a in the can be a critical step to correct errors in a . But timing is everything. Many litigants wonder: ma Review Pettission Ke Time Line kya hai? In this comprehensive guide, we break down the timelines, rules, exceptions, and best practices based on legal precedents and rules. Whether you're challenging a recent order or seeking to rectify an oversight, understanding these deadlines is essential to avoid dismissal.
Note: This article provides general information and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
High Courts in India possess to review their judgments under . This power aims to prevent or correct , as recognized in cases like State of Punjab v. Naveen Mathew Philip (1979) 2023 4 Supreme 617 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1005 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57717. However, review is not an —it cannot re-argue decided points or introduce new evidence unless exceptional circumstances apply 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10158 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1005.
The procedure emphasizes strict timelines to ensure . Courts have consistently held that review petitions must adhere to prescribed limits, or they risk rejection 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 369 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1071
- Malaya Kuala Lumpur
- Malaya Kuala Lumpur
. Typically, the same judge or bench that delivered the original order hears the review to maintain 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1153.The timeline for filing a is governed by rules, the , and judicial precedents. Here's a step-by-step breakdown:
A review application must generally be filed within from the date of the or order sought to be reviewed. This is drawn from the , which applies to such petitions. Petitions filed beyond this period are often deemed out of time unless 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 77.
For example, rules like or stipulate these limits, and courts reject delayed filings without convincing justification 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 369 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1071.
In certain contexts, a stricter period applies for initial filing from a specified date (e.g., notice or event triggering review). The is then expected to consider it within of filing 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1347.
Courts may entertain late filings if it serves the ends of justice. For instance, a review filed was allowed due to surrounding circumstances 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 441. plays a role, but unreasonable delays or lead to dismissal 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 369 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1071.
High Courts can also direct fresh consideration in special cases under constitutional powers, even without statutory review provisions 2023 4 Supreme 617. However, reliance on warns against unlimited reviews, as no decision is final if reviews are permitted at any time 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 122.
Once filed within time:- The considers the application per law, typically within the stipulated frame (e.g., post-filing) 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1347.- It must address of law or fact not previously noticed, not re-hear the entire case 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10158.- The should ideally be the same judge, if available 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1153.
In practice, courts exercise this power judiciously to balance finality with justice. For example, in administrative matters, reviews prevent arbitrary orders but uphold time-bound processes 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 122.
- Malaya Kuala Lumpur
.Courts reference precedents like full bench decisions to limit reviews, ensuring decisions achieve finality 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 122.
To maximize success:- File Promptly: Stick to (or two weeks where applicable) to sidestep limitation issues.- Document Delays: If late, prepare explaining reasons convincingly.- Grounds Matter: Focus on ; avoid .- Seek Expert Help: Engage counsel familiar with rules.
The timeline generally mandates filing within , with shorter windows like two weeks in specific scenarios and court consideration within thereafter 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1347 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 77. Exceptions exist for justice's sake, but courts prioritize timeliness to uphold finality 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 441 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 369.
Key Takeaways:- standard limit; condone only with strong cause.- Review ≠ ; error-correction only.- Same judge preferred; under Arts. 226/227.- Timely action prevents dismissal.
By adhering to these timelines, litigants can effectively invoke review powers. Always verify with current rules for your jurisdiction.
References: 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1347 1967 0 Supreme(Ker) 77 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 441 2023 4 Supreme 617 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1005 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57717 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10158 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1153 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 122 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 369 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1071
- Malaya Kuala Lumpur
- Malaya Kuala Lumpur
#HighCourtReview, #ReviewPetitionTimeline, #LegalDeadlines
There may be cases where a High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India or this Court in exercise of its constitutional powers may specifically direct for fresh consideration of a representation, even in the absence of specific provisions. In High Court of Tripura v. ... Aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2006, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No.19128 of 2006 before the #HL_ST....
From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court has decided the review application as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition (MD) No.8606 of 2010 which is wholly impermissible ... From the aforesaid it appears that the High#....
It would be relevant to note that Justice Patel at the relevant time was sitting at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. 6. ... Application for review in Court consisting of two or more judges - Where the Judge or Judges, or any one of the Judge, who passed the decree or made the order, a review of which is applied for, continues or continue attached to the Court at ....
He placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr., reported in 2002 SCC OnLineCal597, further reaffirmed by Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. ... If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any ....
(supra), wherein, the Apex Court in the given facts of that case opined that the entertaining of the review application by the High Court cannot be said to be ex facie bad in law. ... The instant review petition has been filed by the review petitioner (petitioner) seeking review of the Order dated 07.11.2017 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 550/2016 b....
We do not find the reasoning given by the learned High Court in paragraph 9 while rejecting the plea for exclusion of time to be sustainable. ... The impugned order of the High Court dated 09.04.2018 and Munsiff Court, Hiranagar dated 28.11.2007 are set aside. ... It is submitted that at the time of admission of the revision petition, the applicant has prayed before thi....
The High Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings where the application is filed out of time and there is no good reason for the Court to extend time. In such cases, the application for leave would be struck out. ... Therefore, the cases decided by the Federal Court concerning the provision of time under O ....
The High Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to commence judicial review proceedings where the application is filed out of time and there is no good reason for the Court to extend time. In such cases, the application for leave would be struck out. ... Therefore, the cases decided by the Federal Court concerning the provision of time under O 53 of ....
State of Punjab reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. ... (ii) To grant such other reliefs which the petitioner may seek from time to time an....
Thomas (supra), the Apex Court has held that the High Court as a Court of record has the power and duty to review its own judgment and the same is inherent in every High Court. ... (supra), the Apex Court in the given facts of that case opined that the entertaining of the review application by the High Cour....
A. Kyo ki pita ji ma ke sath atyachar karte the aur badi maa ke sath galat harkate karte hua, maine unhe kai bar pakada.
The said written consent reads as under: "Main, Shahida Khatoon, Pidita Ki Badi Bahan, Apni Marzi se Nimn Nivedan Deti Hun ki: Maan. Tamaam Jaankaari Ke Baad Maine Jaana He Ki Pidita Garbhpaat Karaane Ko Sahmat He. Atah Main Bhee, Pidita Ki Bhalai Aur Garbh Ke Kaaran Bhaavi Samasyaye Ko Dhyan Me Rakhte Huye, Pidita Ka Garbhpaat Karrane Ki Anumati Deti Hu. Aur Yah Anumati Maanniya High Court Ko Bataane Ki Prathna Karti Hu." Ush Lihaaj Se RMO, Civil Asptaal Ko 3 Doctor ki Penal Ke Certificate K....
Aapke ladke ki wife nahi dena chahti, lekin aap doosri family se lena chahtey hain. (c) Interviewer : Kyonki aisa hai ki pehle to maa baap ke liye beta beti ka hota hai farz, ya beta beti ke liye ma baap ka hota hai. Ve hi bolenge nahi hum to khatra nahi molte to baki public jo hai jab aata hai to kabhi na kabhi sochne wali baat hai, kyon aa raha koi. Jab beta hi nahi aa raha hai, to door ke rishtedar kyon aata hai.
Ae vat qrI 0e ke mne polIsva5aAe ranIne l[ jnar ma`s Aa 0e tem kI2u> He also referred to the cross-examination and pointedly referred to following part : mne polIsva5aAe Aa ma`sne Ao5qI btavvana 0e tem khelu>.
5. 2001 dinank 25 May-2001 dwara prabandh Nideshak, Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Aykt Gramya Vikas evam mukhya Vikas Adhikari,allahabad ko nirdeshit kiya gaya tha parantu santoshjanak uttar na prapt hone ke karan shashan ke patra dinank 28. 9. 2001 dwara Prabandh Nideshak,uttar Pradesh jal Nigam se puah santoshjanak uttar bhejne hetu kaha gaya parantu Sri hansraj, Adhisashi Abhiyanta, Ati Prakalp sakha, U. P. Jal Nigam,allahabad dwara prashna ka uttar santoshjanak roop se preshit nahin kiya gaya,j....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
