Vijay Pal Singh vs Vaid Gopal Gosthwal
2014 Latest Caselaw 325 Del

*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             R.S.A. No.147/2011

                                           Decided on : 17TH January, 2014

     VIJAY PAL SINGH                                         ..... Appellant

                   Through:           Mr. Arvind Pandey, Advocate with
                                      appellant in person.

                             versus

     VAID GOPAL GOSTHWAL                                     ..... Respondent

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI


     V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

Review Petition No.8/2014

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. I have also gone

through the averments made in the review petition. The present

review petition has been filed by the appellant for review of the

order dated 11.12.2013 stating that while passing the order, this

court had wrongly noted that the appellant was present on the first

call while it is stated that the appellant never came to the court on

that particular date.

2. The court had passed over the matter at the request of a person who

had put in appearance when the matter was called. It is possible that the person who had appeared may not be the appellant but he

must have done so on the instructions of the appellant or his

counsel. In any case, this cannot be ground to seek review of the

order dated 11.12.2013 as I vividly remember that on the first call

the case was got passed over on the ground that the counsel was on

his legs before the Supreme Court. When the matter was taken up

on the second call at the fag end of the day, even then the counsel

for the appellant did not appear and the court was left with no

option but to go through the record.

3. On a perusal of the record, the court found that both the trial court

and the first appellate court had returned a concurrent finding

holding the appellant to be the tenant in respect of the property in

question and was liable to eviction and thus the court felt that no

substantial question of law is involved in the matter, which is a pre-

condition for issuance of a notice in the second appeal. The appeal

was dismissed holding that it does not involve any substantial

question of law in terms of Section 100 CPC.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant now is that

there has been a misreading of evidence as the ground for rejecting

the impugned orders. This is in effect taking a second chance to argue the case on merits. The review petition is entertainable only

when there is an error apparent on the face of the record while as in

the present there is no error apparent on the face of the record in

respect of the order dated 11.12.2013 when this court had formed a

definite opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in

the matter. If the appellant still feels aggrieved, he can take

recourse to all the remedies available to him in accordance with

law rather than filing a review petition and urging this court to hear

the matter afresh. This cannot be permitted to be done.

5. I find no error apparent on the face of the record for reviewing the

order dated 11.12.2013.

6. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

CM No.242/2014

1. In view of dismissal of the review petition, the application for stay

does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

JANUARY 17, 2014/dm