Gujarat High Court High Court

Indersingh vs Unknown on 18 February, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Indersingh vs Unknown on 18 February, 2011
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

MCA/3336/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

MISC.CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3336 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4145 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================


 

INDERSINGH
S/O DAYALSINGH - SENIOR POINTSMAN - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
GR MALHOTRA for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
None for Opponent(s) : 1 -
3. 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

Date
: 18/02/2011 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM N. MEHTA)

By
filing this application, the applicant-original petitioner has made a
prayer to recall order dated 22.09.2010 and to review and to set
aside the same.

We
have heard learned advocate, Mr. G.R.Malhotra and perused the memo of
review application. The only ground for review is incorporated in
paragraph 8 of the review application. It appears from the
averments made therein that the only ground agitated is that the
Bench did not consider the representation of the
applicants/petitioners at Annexures B,C and D, which formed part of
the pleadings, as stated in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the
petition. In our considered view, scope of review is limited and
learned advocate for the applicant has not been able to point out
that there is any error apparent on the face of the record of the
case. Therefore, if according to the applicant, this court has not
considered the representations, the applicant has other remedy
available in law, and hence, this review application cannot be
entertained.

In
the result, the review application fails and stands dismissed. No
costs.

[A.L.DAVE,
J.]

[B.N.MEHTA,
J.]

JYOTI

   

Top