In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, presided by Justice Alka Sarin, dismissed a review petition with exemplary costs, emphasizing that the practice of changing counsel to re-argue a case is strongly discouraged. The review petition was filed in the matter of Yuvraj Singh v. Harninder Singh and Another (RA-CR-49-2024 in CR-606-2024), challenging the Court’s previous order regarding the payment of mesne profits.
Background of the Case:
The case revolves around a civil revision petition (CR-606-2024) filed by Yuvraj Singh, the petitioner, challenging the order dated January 6, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had fixed mesne profits and directed the petitioner to pay them within one month. On February 5, 2024, the High Court, after hearing both parties, modified the impugned order to allow the petitioner to deposit the mesne profits in a Fixed Deposit (FDR) and granted one month’s time to deposit the arrears.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue involved was whether mesne profits should be paid directly to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal or deposited in a neutral account, such as an FDR, until the final disposal of the case. The petitionerโs counsel had relied on the Supreme Court’s judgments in M/s Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd. and State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. M/s Super Max International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. to argue that mesne profits should be deposited and not paid to the landlord during the appeal.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Justice Alka Sarin, in her detailed order, noted that the case was argued on merits by both parties. The Court reiterated that the mesne profits should be deposited in an FDR, as directed by the Appellate Authority, and allowed the petitioner one month to deposit the arrears. Importantly, the Court addressed the growing practice of changing counsel to file review petitions as an attempt to re-argue cases, which was sternly deprecated.
Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Electricity Board & Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., Justice Sarin emphasized:
“It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming of the profession is cropping up… Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits… Filing of the ‘No Objection Certificate’ would be the basis for him to come on record… The failure to obtain the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition.”
The Court dismissed the review petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 20,000, to be deposited with the Chandigarh Legal Services Authority. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the sanctity of legal proceedings and discouraging frivolous litigation practices.
