Delhi District Court
M/S Cholamandalam Investment vs Jasveer Singh Bhatia on 26 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TALWANT SINGH
DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
M.No.94/2014
Unique Case ID No. 02402C0400292014
M/s Cholamandalam Investment
& Finance Company Ltd. ... Applicant/DH
Versus
Jasveer Singh Bhatia ... Respondent/JD
ORDER ON APPLICATION U/S 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING REVIEW APPLICATION Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/DH under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is mentioned that an execution petition of the applicant was disposed of on 01.06.2013 on the basis of wrong and malafide statement made by the respondent/JD. DH filed an appeal bearing No. F.A. 09/2014 against the order dated 01.06.2013 before Hon'ble High Court. M. No. 94/14 M/s Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. vs. Jasveer Singh Bhatia Page 1 of 5 However, DH withdrew the same on 28.04.2014 with liberty to pursue the remedy available under law. Thereafter, DH instructed its counsel to file review application and DH was assured by its counsel that same would be filed. When the DH enquired about the status of the case, it was revealed that counsel for DH had not filed the review application as he had misplaced the file. Thereafter, DH withdrew all the cases from its earlier counsel and reassigned the cases to new counsel. It is stated that delay in filing the present review application was unintentional and without any fault of DH. It is prayed that delay may please be condoned in filing the review petition. 2 Notice of the application was issued to the JD/respondent, who has filed a detailed reply to the application stating therein that execution petition was disposed of on 01.06.2013 and JD had requested the DH to return original documents lying in possession of DH and had also sent a legal notice in this regard. Thereafter, a case for mandatory injunction for return of original documents was filed but original documents were not returned. It is stated that after 6 months on 16.12.2013, DH filed an appeal before Hon'ble High Court and same was listed there on 28.04.2014 and since same was not maintainable, DH had to withdraw the same. M. No. 94/14 M/s Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. vs. Jasveer Singh Bhatia Page 2 of 5 Thereafter on 17.11.2014, present review petition has been filed. It is stated that review petition is liable to be dismissed as same is time barred.
3 In the present case, an execution petition was filed on 05.06.2012; same was disposed by as satisfied vide order dated 01.06.2013; DH approached Hon'ble High Court and on 16.12.2013 and in Hon'ble High Court F.A. No. 09/2014 was dismissed as withdrawn and thereafter present review petition was filed on 17.11.2014. DH has sought condonation of delay for the period commencing from 28.04.2014 to 17.11.2014 on the ground that its counsel did not file review petition despite specific instructions. Since allegations are against a lawyer for not filing review petition in time, notice was issued to Sh Amit Sinha Advocate, who had been appearing in execution petition and contesting cases on behalf of DH. Sh. Amit Sinha has filed a detailed affidavit refuting the allegations of the DH that cases have been withdrawn from him for his negligence. He has also denied that he had ever communicated to the DH that file of the case got misplaced; he has clarified that no specific instructions were given by the DH to him to prepare review application and he has also denied that he prepared the review M. No. 94/14 M/s Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. vs. Jasveer Singh Bhatia Page 3 of 5 application. He has clarified that allegations levelled in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as affidavit of AR of the DH are wrong, false and baseless.
4 Ld. counsel for the DH has relied upon authorities reported as N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy AIR 1998 SC 3222; Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Sh. B.S.Chopra 81 (1999) DLT 207; Sh. Sanjay Kumar & Anr. vs. Smt. Sita Rani Khanna & Ors. [ IA Nos. 2143 & 13308/2006 in CS (OS) No. 1056/1998] & Koutons Retail India Ltd. vs. Pramod Prasad Gupta and Anr. MANU/DE/2622/2008 to press his contention that a party should not suffer for inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanor of the counsel.
5 There is no dispute as to legal preposition as propounded in abovesaid authorities. However, the fact remains that there is no inaction or negligence on the part of the Advocate as he has filed an affidavit denying allegations of the DH. No counter affidavit has been filed by the DH. Moreover, Mr. Amit Sinha Advocate is still appearing for the DH in number of cases and it is not factually correct that all the cases have been withdrawn from him. 6 6 Therefore, no ground for condition of delay in M. No. 94/14 M/s Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. vs. Jasveer Singh Bhatia Page 4 of 5 filing review petition has been made out. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, review petition is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (TALWANT SINGH)
Dated: 26.10.2015 District & Sessions Judge (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
M. No. 94/14 M/s Cholamandalam Inv. & Fin. Co. Ltd. vs. Jasveer Singh Bhatia Page 5 of 5