Raj Rani vs Sardar Mohinder Singh & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 188 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of Judgment:11th January, 2013

+ Rev. Pet. 132/2012 & CM Nos. 4270-7271/2012 in RSA 77/2010


       RAJ RANI                                     ..... Petitioner
                               Through   Mr.D.K.Rustagi and Mr.Arpit
                                         Bhargava, Adv.

                      versus

   SARDAR MOHINDER SINGH & ANR.         ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv. for R-1 &

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral),

CM NO. 4270/2012 (exemption)

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

CM No. 4271/2012 (Delay)

There is a delay of 233 days in seeking review of the impugned order dated 01.06.2011. Vide order dated 01.06.2011, RSA No. 77/2010 had been disposed of; substantial question of law framed on 02.05.2011 had been answered in favour of the appellant; suit of the plaintiff stood decreed.

The averments contained in the present application have been perused. On 02.05.2011 the substantial question was framed in the presence of the review petitioner/respondent. Matter was directed to be listed on the regular board. Matter was called on 23.05.2011 when none had appeared for the respondent; matter was notified for 26.05.2011 when again there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. So also on 30.05.2011 when arguments were concluded; order was reserved; it was pronounced on 01.06.2011. These facts are undisputed. In para 5 of the present application, it has been averred that on 04.02.2012, the applicant/review petitioner for the first time learnt that the order was passed on 01.06.2011 when the summons in the CS(OS) No. 32/2012 titled as "Raj Rani vs. Ram Sigh & Ors." were received by the applicant; the applicants being the illiterate persons did not know about the fate of their case which was disposed of on 01.06.2011, sympathetic consideration be accorded and the delay in filing the review petition be condoned.

This application has vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant; a formal reply has also been filed.

Record does not substantiate the case of the applicant; record evidences that the applicant has been negligent and although substantial question of law had been formulated in his presence on 02.05.2011 and a specific direction having been given that the matter be listed in due course, yet he admittedly chose not to find out about the fate of his case and even on 04.02.2012 which was more than 9 months later; it was not

as if he had made any effort to find out about the fate of his case, it was when he received summons in the aforenoted suit that he learnt about it. "Sufficient cause" as has been expounded by various judgments and as contained in the language of Section 5 of the Limitation has not been justifiably explained; attitude of the applicant being almost negligent bordering on the point of callousness, he deserves no sympathy.

Application is accordingly dismissed.

Rev. Pet. No. 132/2012

The applicant not having crossed the first threshold of limitation and his petition having been held to be barred by time, review petition as sequitur stands dismissed.

Learned counsel for the applicant/review petitioner at this stage states that the execution be stalled for two weeks from today to which learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner has no objection. The execution proceedings stated to be pending before the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks from today.

No further orders are called for in this petition which stands disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J JANUARY 11, 2013 rb