Delhi District Court
Smt. Prem Wati vs Delhi Development Authority on 2 November, 2010
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NW)-II, ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Misc. No. 10/2010
Smt. Prem Wati
W/o Late Sh. Charan Singh,
R/o H.No.20-A and 34,
Village Gazipur,
Delhi - 110096.
..................Plaintiff
Versus
1. Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.
New Delhi-110023.
Through Its Vice-Chairman.
2. Sh. S.D. Arora
Joint Director (LM/EZ),
Delhi Development Authority,
Barrack No.6, Vikas Kuteer,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110002.
Also at:-
C-99 B, Kalkaji,
New Delhi - 110019 ...............Defendants
ORDER
Vide this order, I propose to decide the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff Smt. Prem Wati, under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 & 151 CPC for review of judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
Prem Wati Vs. DDA (M No. 10/2010) Page 1 of 4The ground for the review as raised by the applicant is that on 26.2.2008 the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff has no legal right / locus standi to file the present suit ? (OPD).
2. Whether thee is no cause of action to file the present suit ? (OPD).
3. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this court as the land has been vested in the Gaon Sabha and placed under disposal of DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act ? (OPD).
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as asked for in the plaint ? (OPP).
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages as asked for in the plaint ? (OPP).
6. Relief.
Later, on 17.7.2008, the Issue No. 3 was reframed as under:-
3) Whether the land in suit has vested in Gaon Sabha and placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act ? (OPD).
It is submitted that this court vide order dated 22.2.2010 has decided the Issue No. 3 as was originally framed on 26.2.2008 in favour of the plaintiff due to inadvertence and accidental omission, instead of deciding Issue No. 3 as reframed on 17.7.2008 and therefore there are no Prem Wati Vs. DDA (M No. 10/2010) Page 2 of 4 findings qua Issue No. 3 as reframed on 17.7.2008 i.e. "Whether the land in suit has vested in Gaon Sabha and placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act ? (OPD)."
It is now submitted that since this court has not decided the Issue No. 3 as reframed on 17.7.2008 i.e. "Whether the land in suit has vested in Gaon Sabha and placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act ? (OPD).", hence it is clear that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and also on the law, which require to be rectified and corrected in deciding the Issue No. 3 as reframed on 17.7.2008.
No reply to the application has been filed by the respondent who have chosen to submit oral arguments on the same.
I have gone through the submissions made on behalf of the applicant / plaintiff and also the written synopsis of arguments placed on record. At the very outset, I may submit that in so far as the provisions of Order 47 CPC are concerned, the same provide for review of the judgment / orders on the grounds provided therein, one of which is that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is evident that the Issue No. 3 as originally framed on 26.2.2008 was "Whether the plaintiff has suppressed material facts from this court as the land has been vested in the Gaon Sabha and placed under disposal of DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act ? The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. This issue was subsequently reframed on 17.7.2008, as "Whether the land in suit has vested in Gaon Sabha and placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act ? (OPD)."
Prem Wati Vs. DDA (M No. 10/2010) Page 3 of 4The onus of proving this issue was upon the defendant. The Issue No. 3 as was originally framed on 26.2.2008 stood deleted.
This being so, it is evident that there is an error apparent on the face of the record as the earlier Issue No. 3 which stood deleted vide order dated 17.7.2008 was decided instead of Issue No. 3 as reframed on 17.7.2008. Therefore under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, I hereby allow the application of the petitioner / plaintiff for review and hereby set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010 on the limited aspect of findings qua the Issue No. 3 and proceed to decide the Issue No. 3 afresh as reframed on 17.7.2008.
Oral submissions in respect of the Issue No. 3 as reframed on 17.7.2008 have already been heard and the written synopsis have also been placed on record.
Case be listed for judgment at 4:00 PM.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 2.11.2010 ASJ (NW)-II, Rohini Prem Wati Vs. DDA (M No. 10/2010) Page 4 of 4 Misc. No. 10/2010 Smt. Prem Wati Vs. DDA 2.11.2010 Present: None.
Vide separate detailed order the application under Order 47 CPC is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010 is set aside on the limited aspect of findings qua Issue No.3 and I proceed to decide the Issue No. 3 afresh as reframed on 17.7.2008.
Oral submissions in respect of the Issue No. 3 as reframed on 17.7.2008 have already been heard and the written synopsis have also been placed on record. In view of the above,be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. KAMINI LAU)
ASJ (NW)-II, Rohini, Delhi/2.11.2010
4:00 PM
Present: None.
Vide my separate detailed judgment and decree, the Issue No.3 as reframed on 17.7.2008 as "Whether the land in suit has vested in Gaon Sabha and placed at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 (1) of the DDA Act ? (OPD)." is hereby decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) ASJ (NW)-II, Rohini, Delhi/ 2.11.2010 Prem Wati Vs. DDA (M No. 10/2010) Page 5 of 4