Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36362 (HP)

ROSHAN LAL AND ORS v. STATE OF HP AND ANR

CMP.M/1845/2025 · 2025-11-21

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Ranjan Sharma

Special Leave Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:39845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1845 of 2025 in Review Petition No.105 of 2025 Decided on: 21.11.2025. __________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of HP & Another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioners: Mr. Vijender Katoch, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The judgment sought to be reviewed in LPA No.309 of 2025, decided on 27.06.2025, was passed in open Court in an appeal argued by another set of counsel’s. The present Review Petition has now been preferred after the matter was first taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court and SLP No.22199 of 2025 was dismissed on 18.08.2025 as withdrawn, granting liberty to file a Review Petition before this Court. 2. We are of the considered opinion that the said 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:39845 - 2 - procedure is not liable to be accepted, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another versus N. Raju Reddiar and another (1997) 9 SCC 736, whereby it has been held that a review cannot be entertained since the case was argued earlier by a different counsel and on the ground that the present counsel would not be aware of what transpired during the hearing. 3. Even otherwise, the order has been passed in open Court, no plausible reason exists to take a different call and the matter cannot now be re-argued as is being attempted by learned counsel for the review petitioner. 4. Therefore, we find no error apparent on the face of record which requires interference. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay [CMP(M) No.1845 of 2025] is allowed, but the Review Petition is dismissed. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge November 21, 2025 [Shivender/Himani]