At, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI
For the Appellant: Vinoy Mishra, Samir Kumar Chakraborty, Advocates. For the Respondent: Sanajit Kr. Ghosh, Advocates.
Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
2. Heard Mr. Mishra, the learned advocate for the applicants/petitioners. The learned advocate for the provident fund authorities have not called on to make any submission.
3. By order dated March 24, 2017 I disposed of the writ petition by directing the provident fund authorities to lift the order of bank attachment if the petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 12 lacs to the provident fund authorities in liquidation of the part of the amount payable by them. It was further directed that the petitioners shall have to undertake to the provident fund authorities to maintain in the banks at least the balance amount of the dues claimed by the provident fund authorities by the orders impugned.
4. By this application for review Mr. Mishra, the learned advocate for the applicants/petitioners, prays for a totally different relief. He says that the petitioners shall liquidate the entire sum by instalments and prays for an order to that effect to be passed.
5. This cannot be the subject matter of review of the order passed by this Court earlier. Mr. Mishra submits that in the writ petition earlier the petitioner prayed for the liberty to pay the dues in instalments. Since that has not been allowed by the Court it must be deemed to have been refused by the Court on the application of the principle contained in explanation V to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even if the petitioners had made such a prayer in the writ petition when it was not allowed the order cannot be altered drastically by way of an application for review. The grounds taken in the application for review are not sufficient to invoke the review jurisdiction of the Court.
6. I find no merit in the application for review, being RVW 104 of 2017 and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connection application being CAN 4198 of 2017 has become inf
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ructuous and the same is also dismissed. 7. There will be no order as to costs. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.