Delhi District Court
Vide This Order vs Narender Nath' Reported In Air 2004 ... on 23 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT KUMAR: ADJ01 (NW)
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
LAC (M) No.73/11
Union of India
versus
Chander Bhan & Ors.
Date of institution of application : 28.07.2011
Date of arguments : 14.05.2013
Date of order : 23.05.2013
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I will disposed off two applications i.e. one u/s 114 CPC seeking review of Judgment dated 25.03.11 and the second is seeking condonation of delay in moving the first application. In the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application, it is stated that the applicant/IP No.1 applied for the certified copy of Judgment dated 25.03.11 and the same has been received on 30.04.11 and because of his old age ailments, he could not contact his counsel and therefore, the delay should be condoned as he has a good prima facie case on merits.
2. The certified copy shows that the application for supplying the certified copy was moved on 26.04.11 and the copy was supplied on 30.04.11. As such, the applicant can seek exemption of only 5 days in calculating the period for filing the review petition. The Judgment is dated 25.03.11 and the certified copy was applied on 26.04.11 which itself is beyond the period of filing review of 30 days. Record further shows that review application was filed on 28.07.11 and is belated for about 90 days. The explanation furnished in the application that certified copies were supplied only on 30.04.11 seems to be malafide since the applicant is trying to conceal when the certified copy was applied for. He cannot seek exemption for the days during which he did not apply for the certified copy. No document whatsoever has been annexed with the application in respect of the alleged ailments. Further, the affidavit filed with this application does not mention the age of IP No.1 as deliberately, the place of the age has been left blank and as such, I find force in the contention of the counsel for IP No.2 that there are no grounds to condone the delay. The application seeking condonation of delay in moving the review application is dismissed and the delay in moving the review application cannot be condoned.
3. Even otherwise, coming to the merits of the review application, it is stated in this application that notification u/s 4 of LA Act of the land in question was issued on 31.12.1981 and the alleged order u/s 81 of DLR Act of vesting the land in Gram Sabha is 26.04.85 which is without jurisdiction as the revenue authorities ceased to have jurisdiction after the notification u/s 4 of LA Act was issued. Ld. Counsel for applicant/IP No.1 Petitioner in support of his arguments has relied upon the following Judgments :
1. Case titled as 'Rajiv Lochan Vs. Narender Nath' reported in AIR 2004 Delhi 48;
2. Case titled as ' Het Ram Vs. Ram Singh' reported in 127 (2006) DLT 509;
3. Case titled as 'Pyare Vs. Financial Commissioner' reported in 94 (2001) DLT 348;
4. Case titled as 'Anil Sagar Vs. Gaon Sabha Village' reported in 84 (2000) DLT 212;
5. Case titled as 'Kamal Kant Baporia Vs. G.S. Kirari Suleman Nagar' reported in 102 (2003) DLT 117;
6. Case titled as 'Rama Shanker Vs. Mukhtiare' reported in 135 (2006) DLT 577;
7. Case titled as 'Ram Kumar Vs. Union of India' reported in 1991 (1) SCR 649 and
8. Case titled as 'Rati Ram Vs. Union of India' reported in 143 (2007) DLT 426
4. I have perused all the Judgments. There is no dispute to the law laid down in these Judgments. However, every case has to be decided on facts. This is a review application which is highly belated and otherwise also, there is no error apparent on the face of record as submitted in this application. It is also claimed that in the writ petition filed by the father of IP No.1, it has been held that IP No.1 is entitled to compensation. I have perused that order. It was held therein that petitioner herein is only legal heir of his father and not that he is entitled to compensation. The scope of review is very limited. The applicant has to establish an error/mistake apparent on the face of record. All the points raised in the review application were duly considered by my Ld. Predecessors in his Judgment dated 25.03.11. The appropriate remedy, if any available with the applicant was to file appeal whose scope is bigger than that of a review application. There is no error apparent on the face of record as submitted in this application seeking review and this application also without merits. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (AMIT KUMAR)
on 23.05.2013 ADJ01(North West)
Rohini Courts/Delhi