M/S. Ayamat Khan And Rahamat Khan, Bhadrak vs. Commnr., Of CT And GST, Odisha

Officer, CT & GST Circle, Barbil in W.P.(C) No.9545 of 2024, but ignoring such fact, the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of W.P.(C) No.14181 of 2024 in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in Ms. Laxmi Construction (supra). While praying to allow the Review Petition, Mr. Kar has made an alternative submission to grant liberty to the review petitioner to allow him to approach the Appellate forum by protecting the petitioner for the limitation, since the petitioner was prosecuting the litigation with due diligence before the High Court and in such event, necessary direction may kindly be passed to the concerned Appellate forum to pass order on merit in the appeal of the petitioner without being influenced by the observation made by this Court in the impugned order.

On the contrary, Mr. S. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the CT & GST submits before this Court that the petitioner has neither pleaded in W.P.(C) No. 14181 of 2024 about withdrawal of earlier writ in W.P.(C) No.9376 of 2024 filed on same cause of action nor annexed the copy of such order and thereby, the petitioner is bringing new fact in the review petition without the same being averred in the writ petition. Further, Mr. Mishra points out that the impugned order in W.P.(C) No.14181 of 2024 is an appealable order, but the petitioner has bypassed the Appellate forum to straight away approach this Court assailing such order which is not permissible and the same point is also under adjudication in Ms. Laxmi Construction (supra) and therefore, the present Review Petition merits no consideration.

In response, Mr. Kar vehemently urges before this Court that the relief sought for in Ms. Laxmi Construction (supra) was already time barred when the petitioner therein approached this Court, but the relief sought for by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14181 of 2024 was within the limitation, when the present petitioner approached this Court and, therefore, the issue involved in W.P.(C) No.14181 of 2024 is not covered by judgment passed in Ms. Laxmi Construction (supra).

In addressing the core issue of amenability of the impugned order to review on the backdrop of rival submissions, there appears no quarrel over the undisputed position of law that a review petition can be admitted in exercise of power U/S. 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC provided the party applying for review of the order must satisfy the Court any of the three grounds, such as:- (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party applying for review or could not be produced by him at the time, when the decree was passed or order made,

On a careful scrutiny of the averments taken in the review petition together with the rival submissions, it unambiguously discloses that the petitioner has sought for review of the impugned order in this review petition mainly on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, but it is claimed by the review-petitioner that the issue involved in W.P.(C) No. 14181 of 2024 is not covered by the judgment passed in Ms. Laxmi Construction (supra). It is hardly disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the impugned order was passed by this Court in presence of the present learned arguing counsels, but no objection was ever raised when such order was passed by this Court which is reflected in the rival submissions as recorded in the impugned order passed in the writ petition and, therefore, the impugned order, which was passed in the presence of learned counsels Mr. R.P. Kar and Mr. S. Mishra clearly demonstrates and reflects that the impugned order has been passed in their presence, but subsequently, the petitioner has come up before this Court seeking review of the impugned order on the ground that there is mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Further, Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel never disputes the impugned order to be appealable one, but he, however, seeks for review of the impugned order passed in the writ petition. Admittedly, Mr. R.P. Kar has made an alternative prayer to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate forum by giving protection to the petitioner for limitation with further prayer to direct the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal without being influenced by the impugned order passed in the writ petition. In the aforesaid backdrop of facts, since the order sought to be reviewed has been passed in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties without any objection and the order impugned in the writ petition being appealable one, this Court does not see any reason to hold that there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record so as to make the impugned order liable for review. Consequently, no grounds for review of the impugned order having made out by the petitioner, the present Review Petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the review petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, no order as to costs.

It is, however, open to the petitioner to approach the Appellate forum for seeking redressal of his grievance and in such event, the Appellate forum shall dispose of the appeal without being influenced by any of the observation made in the impugned order or in the Review Petition, but it may take into consideration the period prosecuted by the petitioner before this Court in the aforesaid litigation with due diligence as a ground for relaxing limitation in accordance with law.