* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RP No. 377/2008 in WP(C) No. 14645-46/2006
Reserved on : November 4th , 2008
% DATE OF DECISION : November 14th, 2008
Namgyal Institute for Research on
Ladakhi Art & Culture & Anr. .... Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Shyamla Pappu,
Senior Advocate with
Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy,
Advocate.
Versus
Delhi Development Authority & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta with
Mr. Rajiv Bansal,
Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J:
1. Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners submitted that by this Review Petition the Petitioners have sought review of the order dated 23rd September, 2008 primarily on the ground that they have challenged the Deed of Assignment dated 2nd August, 1996 as forged and fraudulent and an inquiry with regard to the same is pending before the learned Single Judge. RP No. 377/2008 in WP(C) No. 14645/2006 Page 1 of 3 She stated that she wished to rely upon certain subsequent developments which had taken place after the order has been reserved on 11th September, 2008.
2. We are of the view that just because Petitioners have challenged the Deed of Assignment dated 2nd August, 1996 by way of a suit and the same is pending, does not mean that the writ court is precluded from looking at the document. It is pertinent to mention that till date there is no finding by any court that the said document is forged and/or fabricated. In fact, in the order dated 23rd September, 2008 we had only referred to the Deed of Assignment as a document referred to and relied upon by the applicant. At the same time, we had recorded the Petitioner's contention that the applicant has forged and fabricated documents. But, we had allowed the impleadment application on the basis that the initial Construction Agreement dated 11th December, 1995 had not been denied. Moreover, it is settled law that a review cannot be allowed on account of subsequent developments and events. In any event, it is clarified that our previous order is not an opinion on the merits of the controversy pending before the learned Single Judge.
3. It has further been alleged in para 8 of the Review Petition as if we have erroneously rendered a finding that a vakalatnama has been executed by Mrs. Rani Parvati Devi in favour of Mr. K. Datta, Advocate. In fact, in para 9 of our order dated 23rd September, 2008 we had only recorded Mr. Datta's contention RP No. 377/2008 in WP(C) No. 14645/2006 Page 2 of 3 that he had been appearing for the same Petitioner Trust in W.P.(C) No. 17210/2006. Even during the hearing of the present review petition Mrs. Shyamla Pappu stated that the said Writ Petition namely WP(C) No. 17210/2006 had been filed without any authority and permission of the Trust. This, to our mind, makes it all the more imperative for both Ms. Rani Parwati Devi and the Secretary to appear before the Court.
4. Accordingly, no ground for review is made out and the present petition is dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J MUKUL MUDGAL, J November 14th , 2008 rn RP No. 377/2008 in WP(C) No. 14645/2006 Page 3 of 3