Delhi District Court
Pr vs Unknown on 9 February, 2015
-1-
Review petition no.01/2015
Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors.
09/02/2015
Pr.:- Petitioner in person along with counsel Sh. M. L. Kalkal.
Respondent no. 1 in person along with counsel Sh. Roop Ram.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
List the case for orders at 4.00 PM.
(Kuldeep Narayan) ADJ (SHD), KKD, Delhi. 09/02/2015 At 4.00 PM Pr:- None for the parties.
Record perused.
The applicant filed this application for review under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the order dated 02/01/2015 passed by this court in RCA no. 51/2014 (for short 'the impugned order').
The respondents did not file any reply to this review application. I heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.
In brief, the factual matrix is that Ms. Harjeet Kaur (plaintiff), the respondent no. 1 herein, had filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit in respect of property bearing no. B-46, East Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 ad-measuring 150 sq. yds. (for short 'the suit property') against Ms. Gurpreet Kaur (D-1), Sonu @ Sukhvinder Singh (D-2) & Amanpreet Kaur (D-3). Vide order dated 05/02/2013, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred regular RCA no. 23/2013 before the Ld. Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide order -2- dated 09/10/2013. The defendants thereafter preferred RSA no. 238/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed with cost of Rs.30,000/- vide order dated 24/01/2014.
The plaintiff /DH filed an execution petition no. 21/2013 on 21/03/2013, wherein the defendants/JDs filed objections dated 28/02/2014 under Section 47 CPC which were dismissed vide order dated 25/07/2014 by the Ld. Executing court. Afterwards, another application under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for setting aside the order dated 25/07/2014 was moved on behalf of the JDs on 09/09/2014. Another application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC moved on behalf of Sardar Rajender Singh, the appellant herein, was also filed on 15/10/2014. By way of order dt. 13/11/2014, the objection petition filed by the JDs was dismissed in default and the objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC filed by Sardar Rajender Singh (the appellant) was dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved, Sardar Rajender Singh (the appellant) preferred the present appeal. During the course of proceedings of RCA no. 51/2014, the appellant also moved interim application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC.
Notice of the appeal as well as interim application was issued to the respondents and in the meantime, respondents were directed to maintain status quo. Subsequently, the case file was taken up on an application moved on behalf of respondent no.1 seeking vacation of the status quo orders.
Vide impugned order, the interim application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC was dismissed and the interim application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 151 CPC seeking vacation of status quo order dated 01/12/2014 was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, -3- Sardar Rajender Singh (the appellant) has filed the present review application.
Having heard the submission on both sides, I do not find any merits in the contentions of the counsel for appellant. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order. Even otherwise, vide separate judgement of the even date, appeal bearing RCA no.51/2014 filed by the JDs tilted as 'Rajender Singh v. Harjeet Kaur and ors.' has been dismissed. Therefore, the present review application has become infructous and is accordingly, disposed off.
File be consigned to record room.
(Kuldeep Narayan) ADJ (SHD), KKD, Delhi. 09/02/2015