High Court deprecates ‘new trend’ of filing review pleas with change of counsel

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has come down heavily on a “new-found trend” of litigants engaging new counsel to file review applications in cases already decided, only to reargue the matter on merits. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj of the high court dismissed one such review plea with Rs 20,000 costs, while cautioning that the practice undermined judicial time and professional ethics.

“The present application is yet another attempt in the new-found trend of seeking to file review application by engaging new counsel, who, in his anxiety to prove that he is better than the counsel engaged earlier, starts resorting to raising arguments oblivious of the proceedings that took place in the case when the judgment/order was passed,” the Bench observed during the hearing of a service matter.

Justice Bhardwaj was hearing a petition filed against the Director-General, Central Reserve Police Force, and other respondents. The Bench observed that the counsel for the review applicant submitted that his challenge to the “punishment order of compulsory retirement” had not been considered and the matter was decided without considering merits of his case.

Justice Bhardwaj observed that the counsel had, as a matter of fact, given up the challenge to the impugned orders. The prayer was restricted to full compensation pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. “The contention of the review applicant that he never claimed the above relief, in the review, is contrary to the order dated December 9, 2024.

Justice Bhardwaj asserted that the new counsel, “who was neither aware of the earlier orders and has also conveniently chosen not to advert to the same”. He filed the review application in “an unfounded zeal to appease. Had the challenge to the punishment not been given up, there was no reason to seek full compensation pension under Rule 40 (1) of the Rules of 1972. The claim for seeking pension is to be examined only if there is a retirement/cessation of the relationship between the employer and the employee”.

The Bench added the review application in the present case was filed by a counsel, who was neither the filing counsel, nor the arguing counsel. He was not even present at the time of passing of the orders. The Bench also quoted Supreme Court’s rulings stressing that review petitions could not become a tool for “rehearing of an appeal against an order”, through fresh counsel without even securing a no-objection from the advocate-on-record.

The High Court reiterated that review was permissible only where an error apparent on record existed and not to advance fresh arguments by a new lawyer. Dismissing the plea, the court directed depositing the costs with the Punjab Chief Minister Relief Fund.