Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Shiv Raj Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 1959 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 21.03.2012.


+     CM(M) 346/2012 & CM Nos.5203-04/2012


BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD            ..... Petitioner
                Through Mr. Anil K. Batra, Adv.

                     Versus

SHIV RAJ SINGH                                        ..... Respondent
                          Through      Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr.
                                       Advocate with Mr. Shyam Dev
                                       Lal, Adv.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 13.02.2012

whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner (Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the 'BPC') had been

dismissed. The BPC had sought a review of the order dated 19.09.2011

which was an order passed by the first appellate Court in RFA

proceedings against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010.

2 Record shows that a suit for mandatory injunction had been filed

by the plaintiff against the defendant; this suit was premised on the fact

that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property i.e. property

bearing Municipal No. 1655, situated in Revenue Estate of Village

Najafgarh, Nawada Patti, Dhansa Road, New Delhi by virtue of the

registered sale deed dated 03.12.2003. This suit was decreed on an

application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of

Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') on 12.08.2010.

The RFA against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on

19.09.2011. The regular second appeal i.e. RSA was preferred against

this judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 which was permitted to be

withdrawn by the petitioner on 25.01.2012 on the submission of the

petitioner that he would file a review petition before the appropriate

Court. The RSA had been disposed of accordingly on 25.01.2012. The

present review petition had thereafter been filed on 02.02.2012. The

contentions in the review petition have been noted. This review petition

had sought a review of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011;

contention was that on 23.01.2012, a notice was received from the Court

of Smt. Sarita Birbal, learned ADJ in a suit titled as Sh. Harinder Kumar

& Others Vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh i.e. suit No.08/2012 wherein the

aforenoted sale deed dated 03.12.2003 was the subject matter of

challenge; this fact having been brought to the notice of the petitioner

only subsequently which was not within his knowledge at the time when

the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 was passed, a

ground for review of the judgment dated 19.09.2011 was made out.

3     No reply was filed to this application.

4     The impugned judgment had declined this submission and rightly

so. Record as aforenoted clearly shows that the decree on admission had

been passed in favour of the plaintiff on 12.08.2010 which decree has

since attained a finality as it was reaffirmed in the first appeal on

19.09.2011 and thereafter by the dismissal of the RSA on 25.01.2012. A

conscious decision was made before the second appellate Court (RSA

proceedings) when the RSA was withdrawn on 25.01.2012 seeking

permission to seek other appropriate remedy. The appropriate remedy

availed of by the petitioner was by filing the present review petition

which was on 02.02.2012 seeking review of the judgment and decree

dated 19.09.2011; this was unaccompanied by an application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act; no ground was also urged or explained

as to why there was a delay in preferring the review petition against the

judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 after such a belated period i.e.

after more than four months of the said order. The Court had rightly

noted that in the absence of there being such an averment and the review

petition not being accompanied by an application seeking condonation

of delay, it was clearly time barred.

5 That apart the whole premise of the case of the petitioner is

bordered on the fact that he had received a notice which endorsed that a

sale deed dated 03.12.2003 was the subject matter of challenge; the title

of the landlord was thus in dispute. It is not the case of the petitioner that

the sale deed dated 03.12.2003 has been set aside; merely because some

inter-se proceedings between the members of the family of Mangat Ram

was in dispute would not affect the findings returned in the judgment

and decree dated 12.08.2010 that Shiv Raj Singh was entitled to a decree

of mandatory injunction; this decree of mandatory injunction had been

premised on his ownership rights in terms of the sale deed dated

03.12.2003. The sale deed dated 03.12.2003 was in fact a sale effected

between Mangat Ram and Shiv Raj Singh; the suit No. 08/2012 titled as

Sh. Harinder Kumar & Others Vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh speaks of inter-se

disputes between the heirs of Mangat Ram which would in no manner

effect the rights which have accrued in favour of the plaintiff Shiv Raj

Singh in terms of the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2010 which has

now since attained a finality.

6 The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that he is in a

confused state of mind as to whom the rent is to be paid; he does not

know whether Shiv Raj Singh is the owner or the legal heirs of Kundan

Lal Gupta who had inducted him as sub-lessee in the suit premises; a

specific query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether

any rent has been paid to the legal heirs of Kundan Lal (who the

petitioner himself recognizes as his landlord) to which the answer is in

the negative. Admittedly the petitioner has not paid even a single dime

to any person; it is not as if that he is sitting on no man's land.

7 The impugned judgment in this background dismissing his review

petition seeking review of the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2011 in

no manner suffers from any infirmity; the parameters contained in the

Order XLVII of the Code have to be strictly adhered to while dealing

with a review petition; the contention of the petitioner that he had

received a notice from the Court of ADJ in suit No. 08/2012 is no

ground for him to seek a review of the judgment and decree dated

19.09.2011; the impugned order in no manner suffers from any

infirmity. Petition is dismissed with costs of `10,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 21, 2012 A