* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 21.03.2012.
+ CM(M) 346/2012 & CM Nos.5203-04/2012
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil K. Batra, Adv.
Versus
SHIV RAJ SINGH ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Shyam Dev
Lal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 13.02.2012 whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'BPC') had been dismissed. The BPC had sought a review of the order dated 19.09.2011 which was an order passed by the first appellate Court in RFA proceedings against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010. 2 Record shows that a suit for mandatory injunction had been filed CM(M) No. 346/2012 Page 1 of 6 by the plaintiff against the defendant; this suit was premised on the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property i.e. property bearing Municipal No. 1655, situated in Revenue Estate of Village Najafgarh, Nawada Patti, Dhansa Road, New Delhi by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 03.12.2003. This suit was decreed on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') on 12.08.2010. The RFA against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 19.09.2011. The regular second appeal i.e. RSA was preferred against this judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 which was permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner on 25.01.2012 on the submission of the petitioner that he would file a review petition before the appropriate Court. The RSA had been disposed of accordingly on 25.01.2012. The present review petition had thereafter been filed on 02.02.2012. The contentions in the review petition have been noted. This review petition had sought a review of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011; contention was that on 23.01.2012, a notice was received from the Court of Smt. Sarita Birbal, learned ADJ in a suit titled as Sh. Harinder Kumar & Others Vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh i.e. suit No.08/2012 wherein the CM(M) No. 346/2012 Page 2 of 6 aforenoted sale deed dated 03.12.2003 was the subject matter of challenge; this fact having been brought to the notice of the petitioner only subsequently which was not within his knowledge at the time when the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 was passed, a ground for review of the judgment dated 19.09.2011 was made out.
3 No reply was filed to this application. 4 The impugned judgment had declined this submission and rightly
so. Record as aforenoted clearly shows that the decree on admission had been passed in favour of the plaintiff on 12.08.2010 which decree has since attained a finality as it was reaffirmed in the first appeal on 19.09.2011 and thereafter by the dismissal of the RSA on 25.01.2012. A conscious decision was made before the second appellate Court (RSA proceedings) when the RSA was withdrawn on 25.01.2012 seeking permission to seek other appropriate remedy. The appropriate remedy availed of by the petitioner was by filing the present review petition which was on 02.02.2012 seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011; this was unaccompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; no ground was also urged or explained as to why there was a delay in preferring the review petition against the CM(M) No. 346/2012 Page 3 of 6 judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 after such a belated period i.e. after more than four months of the said order. The Court had rightly noted that in the absence of there being such an averment and the review petition not being accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay, it was clearly time barred.
5 That apart the whole premise of the case of the petitioner is bordered on the fact that he had received a notice which endorsed that a sale deed dated 03.12.2003 was the subject matter of challenge; the title of the landlord was thus in dispute. It is not the case of the petitioner that the sale deed dated 03.12.2003 has been set aside; merely because some inter-se proceedings between the members of the family of Mangat Ram was in dispute would not affect the findings returned in the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010 that Shiv Raj Singh was entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction; this decree of mandatory injunction had been premised on his ownership rights in terms of the sale deed dated 03.12.2003. The sale deed dated 03.12.2003 was in fact a sale effected between Mangat Ram and Shiv Raj Singh; the suit No. 08/2012 titled as Sh. Harinder Kumar & Others Vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh speaks of inter-se disputes between the heirs of Mangat Ram which would in no manner CM(M) No. 346/2012 Page 4 of 6 effect the rights which have accrued in favour of the plaintiff Shiv Raj Singh in terms of the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010 which has now since attained a finality.
6 The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that he is in a confused state of mind as to whom the rent is to be paid; he does not know whether Shiv Raj Singh is the owner or the legal heirs of Kundan Lal Gupta who had inducted him as sub-lessee in the suit premises; a specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any rent has been paid to the legal heirs of Kundan Lal (who the petitioner himself recognizes as his landlord) to which the answer is in the negative. Admittedly the petitioner has not paid even a single dime to any person; it is not as if that he is sitting on no man's land. 7 The impugned judgment in this background dismissing his review petition seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 in no manner suffers from any infirmity; the parameters contained in the Order XLVII of the Code have to be strictly adhered to while dealing with a review petition; the contention of the petitioner that he had received a notice from the Court of ADJ in suit No. 08/2012 is no ground for him to seek a review of the judgment and decree dated CM(M) No. 346/2012 Page 5 of 6 19.09.2011; the impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Petition is dismissed with costs of `10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 21, 2012 A CM(M) No. 346/2012 Page 6 of 6