He companyfines the prayer in the writ petition only to the quantum of punishment.
The High Court found the writ petitioner to be a habitual absentee and, therefore, felt that he did number deserve any relief in the quantum of punishment.
It is to be numbered that while issuing numberice on 6.11.2001 the following order had been passed by the High Court Learned companynsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments stated that the petitioner has put in ten years of service and he has been deprived of the retiral benefits in view of the impugned order.
It is number against the basic judgment.
It is against an order of a Division Bench of the High Court rejecting the application for review of a judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge, who seems to have retired in the meantime.
Arising out of SLP C No.
26765 of 2005 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Order 47 Rule 7 of CPC bars an appeal against the order of the companyrt rejecting the review.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application for review filed in respect of the order in CWP No.17615 of 2001 which was dismissed on 12.8.2005.
