* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. No.147/2011
Decided on : 17TH January, 2014
VIJAY PAL SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Pandey, Advocate with
appellant in person.
versus
VAID GOPAL GOSTHWAL ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
Review Petition No.8/2014
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. I have also gone through the averments made in the review petition. The present review petition has been filed by the appellant for review of the order dated 11.12.2013 stating that while passing the order, this court had wrongly noted that the appellant was present on the first call while it is stated that the appellant never came to the court on that particular date.
2. The court had passed over the matter at the request of a person who had put in appearance when the matter was called. It is possible that the person who had appeared may not be the appellant but he must have done so on the instructions of the appellant or his counsel. In any case, this cannot be ground to seek review of the order dated 11.12.2013 as I vividly remember that on the first call the case was got passed over on the ground that the counsel was on his legs before the Supreme Court. When the matter was taken up on the second call at the fag end of the day, even then the counsel for the appellant did not appear and the court was left with no option but to go through the record.
3. On a perusal of the record, the court found that both the trial court and the first appellate court had returned a concurrent finding holding the appellant to be the tenant in respect of the property in question and was liable to eviction and thus the court felt that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter, which is a pre- condition for issuance of a notice in the second appeal. The appeal was dismissed holding that it does not involve any substantial question of law in terms of Section 100 CPC.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant now is that there has been a misreading of evidence as the ground for rejecting the impugned orders. This is in effect taking a second chance to argue the case on merits. The review petition is entertainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record while as in the present there is no error apparent on the face of the record in respect of the order dated 11.12.2013 when this court had formed a definite opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. If the appellant still feels aggrieved, he can take recourse to all the remedies available to him in accordance with law rather than filing a review petition and urging this court to hear the matter afresh. This cannot be permitted to be done.
5. I find no error apparent on the face of the record for reviewing the order dated 11.12.2013.
6. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.
CM No.242/2014
1. In view of dismissal of the review petition, the application for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JANUARY 17, 2014/dm