Delhi High Court
Jugvir Inder Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 9 March, 2007
Author: A Kumar
Bench: A Kumar
JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar, J.
CM No. 2672/2007 in WP(C) No. 12914/2006
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 2673/2007
1. This is an application for condensation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in refiling the review application is condoned and the application is allowed.
RP No. 79/2007
2. This is an application by the applicant for review of order dated 18th August, 2006 and for restoration of the civil writ petition. The petitioner had filed the writ petition No. 12914/2006 seeking immediate occupation of possession of his entire house at B-21, West End, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi-110021 and for the relief that any person trying to gain entry to the said premises should be arrested immediately. The property was under the tenancy of Malaysian Embassy and an earlier petition was also filed by the petitioner being WP(C) No. 9083/2006 titled Jugvir Inder Singh v. UOI contending that he has a fundamental right to have his property which is being infringed and he is not in a position to reside in his own home. A civil suit for recovery of possession from the Malaysian Embassy from his property was also pending.
3. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed holding that it is for the Civil Court which could decide whether the Malaysian Embassy is to be evicted or not and the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier was dismissed.
4. Thereafter petitioner filed the writ petition No. 12914/2006. When the said writ petition was filed the Malaysian Embassy had already vacated the premises and above noted writ petition was dismissed holding that it is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to recover the possession from the Malaysian Embassy or any other person who is in unlawful possession of the premises. In these circumstances it was held that there are no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Against the dismissal of his writ petition by order dated 18th August, 2006 petitioner filed a review petition being review petition No. 319/2006 contending that Malaysian Embassy had been evicted from the premises and the respondent, Union of India and the deputies of the Ministries have taken possession of the keys and are denying entry to the petitioner.
5. In Suit No. 362/06/1991 by a judicial order Sh.Inderjit Singh, Additional District Judge had handed the keys of the premises to the Local Commissioner and the receiver which order was passed with the consent of the petitioner and the Registrar General of Delhi High Court who was appointed as an interim receiver by order dated 2nd March, 2001 which order was confirmed by subsequent order dated 30th October, 2001.
6. The order dated 28th July, 2006 was noticed by this Court and considering the facts and circumstances it was inferred that the keys of the property No. B- 21, West End Diplomatic Enclave Extension, New Delhi are with the Local Commissioner appointed by the Civil Court pursuant to order dated 28th July, 2006 and not with the respondent, Union of India and consequently it was held that there was no error apparent in the order dated 18th August, 2006 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner and, therefore, the review petition No. 319/2006 was also dismissed by order dated 8th November, 2006. Now by the present review petition the petitioner is again seeking review of order dated 18th August, 2006 on the same grounds which were raised in the earlier review petition.
7. It is no more res integra that power of the Court to review its judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 is extremely limited and an error which is not self evident and has to be deduced by a process of reasoning can hardly be an error apparent on the face of the record. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to become an appeal in disguise.
8. In the present case there is no error in the orders passed by this Court. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the petition, direction could not be given to handover the possession of the property to the petitioner, in view of pendency of civil proceedings. The petitioner had earlier also filed a similar petition which was also dismissed. In the totality of facts and circumstances there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The keys of the premises are with the Local Commissioner/receiver appointed by the Civil Court in a civil suit. In Suit No. 362/06/91 the petitioner and Sh. Gurvir Inder Singh were restrained from trespassing into the property and it was agreed by all the parties having interest in property in dispute that the said property be preserved since various litigations are pending adjudication.
9. In the circumstances there are no grounds to review the order dated 18th August, 2006 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner. The application for review is, therefore, without any merit. An earlier application of the petitioner for review of said order has already been dismissed. Therefore, this application of the petitioner for the review of order dated 18th August, 2006 is also dismissed.
10. dusty.
