Delhi District Court
This Order Shall Decide The Application ... vs . on 13 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE10 (CENTRAL) TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO:346/07
Anil Gupta
Vs.
Mahender Sagar
ORDER
1. This order shall decide the application U/O. 47 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 CPC for review of order dated 29.01.2014 filed by the defendants.
2. In this application it is contended that while allowing the plaintiff's application, in the order dated 19.01.2014 it was recorded in para 7 that counsel for defendants themselves had stated that the defendants were Kumar Brothers & Company and that on 11.06.2007 it was contended by counsel for the defendants that Kumar Brothers & Company was the owner of the Lower Ground Floor. The defendants aver that if it had been admitted that Kumar Brothers were the owners of Lower Ground Floor of the property then there was no need to order for production of ownership documents of Kumar Brothers & Company and thus a mistake apparent on the face of the record had occurred.
3. Further it is averred that the statement of counsel for the plaintiff pertaining to filing of separate suit by Sh. Arvind Jain against the defendants which may have been made either under instructions from the plaintiff or suo motu or even inadvertently was a blatant lie as no suit of any kind whether 346/07 Anil Gupta Vs. Mahender Sagar 1/5 against the defendants or Kumar Brothers & Company had been filed by Sh. Arvind Jain nor was any such suit pending either in Saket Courts or any other courts.
4. It is averred that a careful reading of the order dated 29.01.2014 would reveal that the statement made by Ld. counsel at Bar had greatly weighed with the court while arriving at the conclusion thereby allowing the application. The defendants further contend that Sh. Arvind Jain resides on the Second Floor whereas the plaintiff lives on the First Floor and any brunt of alleged scarcity of water affects Sh. Arvind Jain more than the plaintiff but Sh. Arvind Jain has not filed any such suit however to cover up the false allegation of scarcity of water another false statement was made that Sh. Arvind Jain had filed a separate suit. It is prayed therefore that the order dated 29.01.2014 may be reviewed.
5. In reply the plaintiff has taken the preliminary objection that the application is barred by limitation and not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. It is averred inter alia that the application for interrogatories had not been opposed on any of the grounds mentioned in U/O. 11 Rules 1 & 12 CPC and the present application contains matters far beyond the pleadings in the reply to the application U/O. 11 Rules 1 & 12 CPC and also matters which are irrelevant for determination of the review application.
6. Oral arguments were advanced by counsel for the parties. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on (2011) 8 SCC 249 titled Ramrameshwari Devi & Others Vs. Nirmala Devi & Others and 2006 CLT56(SC) titled Haridas Vs. Usha Rani Banik. Ld. Counsel for the defendants on the other hand relied on certain 346/07 Anil Gupta Vs. Mahender Sagar 2/5 orders passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in FAO (OS) 52/14 titled Raj Mohini & Others Vs. Raj Rani Uppal & Others especially the order dated 31.01.2014 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that the statement of the counsel for appellant had specifically been noted that a copy of a will had not been filed along with the original plaint and on inspection the statement was found to be incorrect and on this ground alone the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was inclined to dismiss the appeal which was accordingly done. Counsel for the defendants sought to argue in light of the aforesaid order that on the basis of wrong statements being made by parties the case itself is liable to be dismissed and that not just the review petition be allowed but the suit itself be dismissed.
7. Heard and perused.
8. It is well settled law that the scope of review U/O. 47 R/W Section 114 CPC is very limited. In the garb of review the applicant cannot seek a rehearing of the matter. Infact, first of all, in the present case the aspect of limitation has to be considered since the limitation period for filing a review application is thirty days from the date of passing of the order; Counsel for the defendants argued that the present application filed on 04.03.2014 was within limitation from the date of receipt of certified copy of the impugned order by the defendants, but I fail to see the merit in this contention which is not even pleaded in the entire application nor have the defendants even sought to file an application seeking condonation of delay on the aforesaid ground or any other ground. Mere oral submissions having no basis in the averments contained in 346/07 Anil Gupta Vs. Mahender Sagar 3/5 the application and which are not even substantiated with documentation being filed on the record in support of such a contention such as the certified copy of the order showing the date of receipt of the order, cannot be considered.
9. The present application on the ground of limitation alone is liable to be dismissed however, even on merits the application hopelessly fails, it is strange that the defendants have now sought to assail through the present application the particular portion of the order dated 03.10.2011 which was merely reproduced in the impugned order without giving any reason for such a long delay in so doing. The order dated 03.10.2011 was never challenged earlier by the defendants and even otherwise, the order dated 03.10.2011 had been reproduced in the impugned order to bring out the apparently conflicting submissions of the defendants who on 03.10.2011 had stated that the defendants were Kumar Brothers & Company and there was no requirement to implead them while in para 2 of the reply on merits in the written statement, the defendants had averred that it was Kumar Brothers & Company who were the owners of Lower Ground Floor and not the defendants. It was noted further in the impugned order dated 29.01.2014 that it had not come out in the written statement as to whether Kumar Brothers & Company was a corporation/company or a partnership firm and for these reasons it appeared that the interrogatories were relevant and expedient and would curtail the litigation time. The defendants do not have anything to say in the present application regarding the discrepancies in their submissions as noted by the court. The order passed in FAO (OS) 52/14 is distinguishable on facts and 346/07 Anil Gupta Vs. Mahender Sagar 4/5 does not aid the defendant's case in any manner. In the case of Ramrameshwari Devi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act and if the exercise is carefully carried out it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at the truth of the matter and doing substantial justice. The defendants have failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review of the order dated 29.01.2014.
10. The application of defendants is barred by limitation and also devoid of any merit whatsoever. The application of defendants is thus dismissed.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
on 13.12.2014 Civil Judge10(Central)/THC
Delhi/13.12.2014
346/07 Anil Gupta Vs. Mahender Sagar 5/5