* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th December, 2014
+ RSA 248/2014 & CM No. 15449/2014
SHRI MAHABIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Smita Maan & Mr.Vishal Maan,
Advocates
versus
DHARAM DAS GUPTA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
+ RSA 251/2014 & CM No. 15485/2014
SMT. SUNITA RANI ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Smita Maan & Mr.Vishal Maan,
Advocates
versus
SH. DHARAM DASS & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL) Since the facts arising in the afore-captioned two appeals are similar and the findings returned in the impugned judgment are identical, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the appellants, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
RSA No.248/2014 Page 1 RSA No.251/2014
At the hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the proper course for appellants would be to seek a review of the impugned judgment as the main contention raised by appellants regarding identification of the suit property and sale deeds in question being contrary to the admitted site plan has not been considered in the impugned judgment.
In view of the stand taken as aforesaid, both these appeals and the applications are disposed of with liberty to appellants to seek review of the impugned judgment of 28th April, 2014 within a period of two weeks.
Needless to say that in case appellants do not succeed in the review then they will be well within their rights to challenge the impugned judgment as well as orders passed in the review. Both the appeals and applications disposed of with aforesaid observations.
Copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master to counsel for parties.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
NOVEMBER 13, 2014
r/mb
RSA No.248/2014 Page 2
RSA No.251/2014