P.S. Prasad & Family (Huf) vs M/S. Bharat Bijlee Ltd.
1999 Latest Caselaw 1256 Del

ORDER

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This is a review application under Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking the review of the impugned Order dated 2nd February, 1999 which set aside the expert Order dated 11th March, 1997.

2. The main ground for seeking the review is founded on the plea of the review applicant/respondent that the judgment was reserved in the present revision petition on 14.12.1998. It is stated that on the same date the Trial Court also heard the matter and passed the following order :-

"Present Counsel for the plaintiff.

Mr. Arvind Sah for defendant. He states that there is a revision petition pending against order of 3.10.97 and therefore case be adjourned and particularly because the case is fixed to be heard today. The prayer for adjournment is refused. Let the case proceed.

The cost for setting aside the expert order have not been yet paid on the excuse that the revision is pending. The excuse is not sufficient. Hence the expert order is not set aside.

Final arguments heard. Judgment reserved."

3. The ground for review is that pursuant to the reserving of the judgment on 14.12.1998, an expert judgment and decree was passed by the Additional District Judge on 22.12.1998.

4. It is the plea of the review applicant/respondent that the revision petition before this Court had thus become in fructuous in view of the final judgment passed in the Trial Court. Even on 14.12.1998, it is clear that the review applicant's counsel who appeared before the Trial Court on that day stated that the revision petition shall be heard on 14.12.1998 before this Court. Thus it is very clear that on 14.12.1998, the counsel for the respondent/review applicant was aware of the listing of the case in this Court which reserved the orders on that day and later on pronounced the orders on 2.2.1999. Even till 2.2.1999, no effort was made by the respondent/review applicant either to mention this case in this Court or to move any application in respect of the proceedings of 14.12.1998. Obviously, this was with a view to take a chance in the proceedings and the present review petition was filed only on 3rd March, 1999 even though the review applicant was aware of the listing of the case in this Court on 14.12.98 and the judgment of the Trial Court on 22.12.98. The review applicant/respondent herein is thus solely responsible for the turn of events and this cannot be a ground to seek the review of the Order dated 2.2.1999.

5. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this review application, which is dismissed with costs.