State Bank Of India And ORS v. Dev Raj Goyal And ORS




    
    

 !" #$%&' () Date of Decision: 23.10.2018 State Bank of India and others .....Appellants versus Dev Raj Goyal and others .....Respondents   (*  +(

 ,
-
,(


.
  ,
    +(

 ,


 
.  Present :

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate, for the appellants. **** -
,(


.  '

 ) CM Nos. 4387 and 4388-LPA of 2018 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 287 days in filing and 6 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Both the applications stand disposed of.

 

 !" #$%& This intra-court appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2017 disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondents herein by directing that the amount recovered by the appellant's bank on account of payment towards the Leave Travel Concession wrongly paid due to misinterpretation of circular letter dated 31.10.2015 is to be refunded if not already refunded and also to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of recovery till actual repayment of the amount.

2.

Challenge has also been made in this appeal to the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application made by the appellants herein under Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the judgment. The review application has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by passing the following order:- Ravinder Sharma 2018.10.26 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

LPA No. 1675 of 2018 2
   



           

  

   

    !"!  #$ #$# $   %$    &' 

  

    '

&     ( )       '

$    !

&    

$     

 '  

   

    $*  3.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that rejection of the review application on the ground that the remedy by way of Letters Patent Appeal is available cannot be sustained inasmuch as the review is to be considered and decided on its own parameters as laid down in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and merely because a remedy by way of an appeal to the higher forum is available cannot in itself constitute a ground to dismiss the review application. From a perusal of the impugned order quoted hereinabove, we find that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the review application on-merits but instead dismissed it only on the ground that the remedy by way of appeal is available.

4.

In our considered view also, the existence of a remedy before the higher forum cannot in itself constitute a ground to dismiss the review application. The view taken by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the review application is patently erroneous and not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the order dated 03.08.2018 and the appeal stands disposed of to the above extent. The matter stands remitted back to the learned Single Judge to consider the review application afresh on its on-merits in accordance with law.








 






  



















  
 




 


 !"

Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No√ Ravinder Sharma 2018.10.26 11:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document