Shanti Devi & Ors. vs Shanti Devi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 5533 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 17.11.2011

+ RSA 48/2008

SHANTI DEVI & ORS.                        ...........Appellants
                         Through:    Mr. R.K. Kapoor and
                                     Ms. Shweta Kapoor and
                                     Ms. Reetu Sharma, Advocates.

                   Versus

LAXMI DEVI & ORS.                        ..........Respondents
                         Through:    Nemo.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

CM No. 20703/2011(exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

Review Pet. No. 678/2011 & CM Nos. 20701-02/2011

1. This review petition seeks a review of the judgment and

decree dated 23.05.2011; alongwith the review petition an

application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review

petition has also been filed; there is a delay of 129 days;

contention is that the review petition has been filed belatedly for

the reason that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before the

Supreme Court and the Apex Court has dismissed his SLP only on

10.10.2011; review petition filed thereafter is within limitation;

his further submission is that the doctrine of merger is not

applicable in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in 2006 SCC

359 titled as Kunhayameed & Ors. vs. State of Kerela & Anr. The

vehement argument of the petitioner is that para 19 of the

impugned judgment has stated that the plot i.e. the plot Nos. 105,

106 and 107 had after 1984 merged into the street; further

contention being that the suit had been filed in the year 1983 and

if this submission of the plaintiff is accepted that the plot had

merged into the street only after 1984, how a contradictory

version found mentioned in the plaint has not been answered; this

is an error apparent on the face of the record. This is the gist of

the argument addressed before this court.

2. The present review petition has assailed the judgment and

decree dated 23.05.2011; it has admittedly been filed beyond the

period of limitation prescribed for a review. This order dated

23.5.2011 had been the subject of a special leave petition. The

Apex Court has dismissed the SLP. On the first date of hearing

(which was on 26.09.2011), the court had directed the petitioner

to produce the sketch as also the other documents; on the

subsequent date (i.e. on 10.10.2011) the petition had been

dismissed.

3. The argument urged before this court is wholly meritless; it

does not in any manner amount to an error apparent on the face

of the record; even assuming that in para 19 the date of 1984 has

crept in by mistake, it would not amount to an error apparent on

the face of the record as has been urged; the merits of the

controversy would still remain unaffected.

4. Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J NOVEMBER 17, 2011/rb