Namgyal Institute For Research On ... vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 2011 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             RP No. 377/2008 in WP(C) No. 14645-46/2006


                                   Reserved on : November 4th , 2008

%                         DATE OF DECISION : November 14th, 2008

Namgyal Institute for Research on
Ladakhi Art & Culture & Anr.                    .... Petitioners
                           Through:             Mrs. Shyamla Pappu,
                                                Senior Advocate with
                                                Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy,
                                                Advocate.

                                    Versus

Delhi Development Authority & Ors.              ..... Respondents
                          Through:              Mr. Lalit Gupta with
                                                Mr. Rajiv Bansal,
                                                Advocate for DDA.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                                    No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?                    No


                            JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J:

1. Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners

submitted that by this Review Petition the Petitioners have sought

review of the order dated 23rd September, 2008 primarily on the

ground that they have challenged the Deed of Assignment dated

2nd August, 1996 as forged and fraudulent and an inquiry with

regard to the same is pending before the learned Single Judge.

She stated that she wished to rely upon certain subsequent

developments which had taken place after the order has been

reserved on 11th September, 2008.

2. We are of the view that just because Petitioners have

challenged the Deed of Assignment dated 2nd August, 1996 by way

of a suit and the same is pending, does not mean that the writ

court is precluded from looking at the document. It is pertinent to

mention that till date there is no finding by any court that the said

document is forged and/or fabricated. In fact, in the order dated

23rd September, 2008 we had only referred to the Deed of

Assignment as a document referred to and relied upon by the

applicant. At the same time, we had recorded the Petitioner's

contention that the applicant has forged and fabricated

documents. But, we had allowed the impleadment application on

the basis that the initial Construction Agreement dated 11th

December, 1995 had not been denied. Moreover, it is settled law

that a review cannot be allowed on account of subsequent

developments and events. In any event, it is clarified that our

previous order is not an opinion on the merits of the controversy

pending before the learned Single Judge.

3. It has further been alleged in para 8 of the Review Petition

as if we have erroneously rendered a finding that a vakalatnama

has been executed by Mrs. Rani Parvati Devi in favour of Mr. K.

Datta, Advocate. In fact, in para 9 of our order dated 23rd

September, 2008 we had only recorded Mr. Datta's contention

that he had been appearing for the same Petitioner Trust in

W.P.(C) No. 17210/2006. Even during the hearing of the present

review petition Mrs. Shyamla Pappu stated that the said Writ

Petition namely WP(C) No. 17210/2006 had been filed without any

authority and permission of the Trust. This, to our mind, makes it

all the more imperative for both Ms. Rani Parwati Devi and the

Secretary to appear before the Court.

4. Accordingly, no ground for review is made out and the

present petition is dismissed.

MANMOHAN, J

MUKUL MUDGAL, J November 14th , 2008 rn