Holding

Filing a review petition after dismissal of an SLP and a subsequent clarification application by a new advocate without the consent of the original advocate‑on‑record is an abuse of process and must be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed an application for clarification filed by a new advocate after a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and a subsequent review petition had already been dismissed. The petitioner, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, had originally engaged Advocate‑on‑Record Mr. Mariaputham, while the respondent’s counsel later changed to Mr. V. Balachandran, who filed the review petition without the consent of the original advocate. A third counsel, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, then filed a clarification application, claiming the order was unclear. The Court held that filing a review petition after dismissal of an SLP, and thereafter a clarification application, by counsel who were not parties to the original proceedings and without a No Objection Certificate, constitutes an abuse of process. It emphasized that review petitions are not a vehicle for rehearing on merits and that such repetitive filings undermine the integrity of the legal profession. Consequently, the clarification application was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000 to be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee.

Issues considered

Whether a review petition can be filed after the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition.
Whether an application for clarification may be filed after a review petition has been dismissed.
Whether filing such petitions by a counsel who was not the original advocate‑on‑record and without a No Objection Certificate amounts to an abuse of process.
Whether exemplary costs can be imposed for abusing the court's process.

Subjects

review petitionspecial leave petitionclarification applicationadvocate‑on‑recordabuse of processexemplary costslegal profession ethicsno objection certificate

Judgment

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR A
v.
N. RAJU REDDIAR AND ANR

DECEMBER 20, 1996

(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) B

Practice and Procedure

Review-£Jismissal of Special Leave Petition filed by Advocate-on-
Record-After disposal of SLP another counsel filed review petition-After C
dismissal of review petition yet another counsel filed application for clarifica-
tion--Deprecation of such a practice-Clarification application dismissed
with exemplary cost--Held, it was abuse of process of Court-Review petition
is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on
merits--JJnfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such
review petitions as a routine; thr<t too, with charge of counsel, without D
obtaining consent of the. advocate on record at earlier stage-This is not
conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to
maintain the salutary practice of profession.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO. 3 OF 1996.
E
IN

Civil Appeal No. 7496 of 1996

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.95 of the Madras High
Court in O.S.A. No. 112 of 1987. F
T.L.V. Iyer, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar for the Appellants.

V. Krishnamurthy and V.Balachandran (NP) for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : G
It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming and not worthy
or conductive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advo-
cate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner- respondent when
the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr.
V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also H
915
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[l996) SUPP.10 S.C.R.

A dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr.
S.U.K Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled
as "application for clarification'', on the specious plea that the order is not
clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed,
except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record,
B no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither
appeared not was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that court
spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should
not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately,
it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a
routine; that too, with change of counsei without obtaining consent of the
C advocate on record at a earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy
practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary
·practice of profession. In Review Petition No. 2670/96 in CA No. 1867/92,
a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K, Ramaswamy, J., was a
member, had held as under :
D "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was
the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided
on merits. The Review Petition has been filed by Shri Prabir
Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal
was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is
E unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review _,..
Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He
did not confine to the scope of review. It would be µot in the
interest of the profession to permit such practice. That part, he
has not obtained "No Objection Certificate" from the Advocate-
on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had
F informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No
Objection Certificate" would be the basis for him to conie on
record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the
Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection certificate" from
the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Peti-
G tion. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits. It is an
· attempt to reargue the matter on merits.

On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition".

H Once the petitionfor review is dismissed, no application for clarifica-
T.N. ELECTRICITY BD. v. N.RAJU REDDIAR 917

tion should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. A

-
This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should
be deprecated with heavy hand for purity of administration of law and
salutary and healthy practice.

The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000/- as
it is an abuse of the process of court in derogation of healthy practice: The B
amount should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Commit-
tee within four months from today. If the amount is not paid, it should be
recovered treating this direction as decree of the Court by the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate
this order to the Supreme Court Legal Services, Committee. C
T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

-
'