$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th January, 2019
+ O.M.P. 71/2006
NRI FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha and Mr. M. S. Akhtar,
Advocates for Petitioner No.3.
(M:9711684779 & 9910770311)
versus
SHRI MUKESH KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Mehta, Advocate.
(M:9818023754)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
REVIEW PET. 2/2019 in O.M.P. 71/2006
1. The present review petition No.2/2019 has been filed seeking review of order dated 12th November, 2018 passed in O.A.141/2018.
2. As recorded in the order dated 12th November, 2018, the O.A.141/2018 was preferred against the order dated 4th September, 2018 passed by the Joint Registrar dismissing the application of the Petitioners seeking condonation of delay in disclosing the details of movable and immovable assets.
3. The said O.A. was dismissed after a reasoned order passed on 12th November, 2018. In the present review petition, two grounds are raised i.e. firstly that the Joint Registrar did not have powers to allow condonation of delay in filing the details of the movable and immovable assets and O.M.P. 71/2006 Page 1 of 4 secondly, there are two typographical/other errors in the order dated 12th November, 2018.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that submission that the Joint Registrar did not have powers to deal with the I.A. No.11796/2018. He relies upon the amended powers of the Joint Registrar as per the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 to submit that the Joint Registrar has no inherent powers to deal with an application under Section 151 CPC. It is further submitted that there are two errors in the order i.e. in paragraph 2 wherein Sections 30/33 of the 1940 Act had to be mentioned and in paragraphs 5 & 6 the date of the order ought to be read as 18 th May, 2017 and not as 18th May, 2018.
5. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Joint Registrar has powers both under Sub-Clause 1 and 60 of Chapter 2 Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. He further relies upon the Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 78 to submit that the review goes beyond the permissible grounds i.e. grounds on merits have been urged in the review petition. He further submits that the submission that the Joint Registrar did not have powers to deal with this application is not raised before the Joint Registrar or before this Court.
6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the grounds in the O.A. are categorical i.e. the first ground which was raised was that the Joint Registrar did not have powers.
7. This Court has heard the submissions of the parties. As is recorded in the last order dated 12th November, 2018, the application being I.A. No.11796/2018 was moved by the Petitioners seeking condonation of delay in complying with the previous orders passed by this Court, directing the O.M.P. 71/2006 Page 2 of 4 Petitioners to disclose the movable and immovable assets. Clearly, such an affidavit disclosing the movable and immovable assets was a pre-condition to even entertain any application for condonation of delay. As noted in the last order, the Petitioners moved an application seeking condonation of delay without even attaching or filing the affidavit disclosing the movable and immovable assets. The application was, thus, not entertainable in any event.
8. Coming to the powers of the Joint Registrar, the said powers are wide as is clear from the delegation given in Rule 3 Chapter 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The Petitioners were merely seeking enlargement of time to comply with the earlier orders of the Court and the same is clearly covered under various sub-clauses including Sub-clause 1 & Sub-Clause 60 of Rule 3. The said provisions read as under:
"3. Powers of the Registrar.-The powers of the Court, including the power to impose costs in relation to the following matters, may be exercised by the Registrar (1) Admission of plaints and applications and issue of summons and notices;
......
(60) Applications for enlargement or abridgement of time including applications to foreclose the right to file the written statements and replies or applications seeking extension of time for leading evidence and foreclosing the right to lead evidence; and ....."
9. Though the application was filed by the Petitioners seeking condonation of delay, in effect, it was nothing but an application seeking enlargement of time to comply with the orders of this Court. This power for enlargement of time to comply with an order of the Court is clearly delegated to the Joint Registrar under the above provisions. Thus, the ground O.M.P. 71/2006 Page 3 of 4 that the Joint Registrar lacked the power to decide the application for condonation of delay, is not tenable.
10. Moreover, the present review, in effect, seeks to re-open the order dated 12th November, 2018 on merits, which is also not permissible.
11. The typographical error i.e. in paragraphs 5 & 6 of the order to the effect that the date of order ought to be read as 18th May, 2017, is directed to be made in the said order. The correction sought in respect of the provision under which the objections were filed is not required to be entertained, as the said objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, are a part of the record. The same have to be read with the orders passed by this Court, numbering the present petition as an OMP dated 23rd January 2006.
12. Costs be deposited by the Petitioners within two weeks.
13. With these observations, review petition is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JANUARY 07, 2019/dk O.M.P. 71/2006 Page 4 of 4