Summary
When a Supreme Court review petition was dismissed after open-court hearing, omission of the averment required by Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) could not be used by the Registrar to refuse registration of a curative petition. The petitioner must instead seek exemption under Order LV Rule 2 for directions from a Judge in Chambers. The Registrar’s refusal was set aside, but the Court declined to entertain the curative petitions on their merits.
Issues
- Whether the Registrar may refuse registration of a curative petition because the review petition was dismissed after an open-court hearing rather than by circulation, contrary to the averment required by Order XLVIII Rule 2(1).
- What procedure applies where a curative petitioner seeks exemption from that averment, and whether the curative petitions warranted reconsideration.
Provisions considered
- Order XLVIII Rules 2(1), 3 and 4, Supreme Court Rules, 2013Rule 2(1) requires an averment that the grounds were raised in review and the review was dismissed by circulation. Where review was dismissed after open-court hearing, the petitioner must seek exemption from that requirement; the Rules otherwise provide for circulation of curative petitions and their consideration by the prescribed Bench. (¶¶ 9, 19, 21)
- Order LV Rule 2, Supreme Court Rules, 2013An application to be excused from compliance with a rule must first be addressed to the Registrar, who obtains instructions from the Judge in Chambers and communicates them to the parties. This is the route for a curative petition following open-court dismissal of review. (¶¶ 14, 20, 21)
- Order XV Rule 5, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The Registrar’s power to refuse a petition under Rule 5 does not extend to refusing registration solely because the curative petition lacks the Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) averment where the review was dismissed after open-court hearing. (¶¶ 1, 19, 22)
- Articles 129, 137, 142 and 145, Constitution of IndiaThe Court’s curative jurisdiction is inherent and derives from Articles 129 and 142, while the Rules governing the procedure are made under Article 145. The thirty-day period for review petitions does not govern curative petitions; Order XLVIII Rule 3 requires filing within a reasonable time. (¶¶ 7, 8, 11)
Held
- The Registrar cannot decide whether a curative petition following an open-court dismissal of review merits judicial reconsideration. The omission of an averment under Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) is not, by itself, a ground under Order XV Rule 5 to refuse receipt or registration. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- A curative petitioner whose review was dismissed after open-court hearing must apply to be excused from compliance with Order XLVIII Rule 2(1) under Order LV Rule 2, requesting that instructions be obtained from a Judge in Chambers. For reviews dismissed by circulation, the ordinary circulation procedure under Order XLVIII Rule 4 applies. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The thirty-day limitation period for review petitions does not apply to curative petitions; the governing requirement is filing within a reasonable time under Order XLVIII Rule 3. (¶ 11)
- The Registrar’s order declining registration was contrary to the Rules and was set aside. Having examined the underlying orders and petitions, the Court found no basis to invoke curative jurisdiction and declined to entertain the petitions rather than remand them for procedural directions. (¶¶ 22, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed to the extent that the Registrar’s refusal order was set aside; the Court itself declined to entertain the curative petitions. The connected matters were disposed of on the same terms.