Summary
A second appeal was heard at the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. The judge later moved to the Principal Seat in Mumbai and decided it from there by virtual mode. The respondents applied for review. The appellant asked that the review be placed before the same judge, and a judge of the Goa Bench rejected that request on the judicial side. Without deciding which judge should hear the review, the Supreme Court set aside that order. Under the proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the High Court's Appellate Side Rules, the Chief Justice, as master of the roster, assigns a review where the original judge is unavailable. The request therefore had to go to the Chief Justice on the administrative side.
Issues
- Whether a single Judge could reject on the judicial side an application that a review petition be placed before the Judge who decided the second appeal, now sitting at the Principal Seat, or whether it had to be referred to the Chief Justice on the administrative side.
Provisions considered
- Chapter XXX, Rule 3(1) and proviso, Bombay High Court Appellate Side RulesA review is to be placed before the Judge who passed the order; where that Judge has ceased to sit at the Bench or is unavailable, the Chief Justice may assign it, so the request belonged before the Chief Justice. (¶¶ 12, 15)
- Order XLVII Rule 5 (Bombay amendment), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Relied on by the appellant for hearing of the review by the same Judge; the Court did not interpret it or decide which Judge should hear the review. (¶¶ 11, 15)
Held
- The Court declined to interpret the Rules to decide which Judge should hear the review, the matter turning only on interpretation of the Rules, propriety and jurisdiction. (¶ 15)
- Once a party applied for the review to be heard by the Judge who passed the order under review, the matter ought to have been placed before the Chief Justice, who as master of the roster is empowered by the proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX to assign reviews where the Judge concerned is unavailable or no longer sits at that Bench; the single Judge ought not to have dealt with the application on the judicial side. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 8293 of 2022 allowed; the order dated 16.07.2019 in Misc. Civil Application No. 526 of 2019 set aside and the Registry directed to place that application before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for appropriate orders.