Sudhir Paul v. Arabinda Roy And ORS

Case No :CMAppl.(REVIEW) 0000008/2015 Party Name : SUDHIR PAUL Vs ARABINDA ROY & ORS HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner. The judgment, review of which is sought was passed by this Court on 11-03-2015. The petitioner was duly represented in the said appeal by the same counsel who has filed the present review petition. The only explanation given for not filing the review petition in time is that the money was required. There is no explanation worth the name for condoning the delay of 22 days in filing the review petition. Furthermore, on merits also I find no merit in the review petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that future prospects have not been taken into consideration while calculating the compensation and the rate of interest awarded is on the lower side.

These are matters which go to the merits of the case. The judgment was delivered orally in Court in the presence of the counsel and at that time, no such objection was raised which is now sought to be raised in the review petition. There is no error much less an error apparent on the face of the record.

Therefore, I find no merit either in the review petition or in the application for condonation of delay and hence, both are rejected. Download Date: 8-05-2017 15:05 1/1