Delhi High Court
Smt Shanti Devi vs Chief Executive Officer Delhi ... on 3 September, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Review Pet. No.384/2015 in R.S.A. No.154/2014
Decided on : 3rd September, 2015
SMT SHANTI DEVI ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Versus
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD
...... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. App. No. 14667/2015
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 63 days in
filing the application seeking review of the order dated 18.5.2015.
2. In the application it has been stated that some time was taken by
the court in uploading the order dated 18.5.2015 and as the learned
counsel for the appellant is aged about 80 years, he is suffering from
respiratory and old age problems because of which he was advised to
seek change of climate to avoid the pollution in Delhi. It is stated that
learned counsel has left for his native place in Kolkata in the first week of
June, 2015 and returned only on 16.7.2015. After returning in the middle
of July, 2015, the Court had re-opened on 1.7.2015 and he filed the
present review application on 21.7.2015. It is stated that 23 rd and 24th
July and 30th and 31st July were court holidays and in case these are
excluded total quantum of delay is 63 days. The application is supported
with the affidavit of Shri P. Chakroborty, the learned counsel for the
appellant. I have heard the learned counsel. I have also gone through the
record. Since the delay in filing the review application is occasioned
because of the ill health of the learned counsel, therefore, I am inclined to
condone the delay treating the same as having been caused by reasons
beyond the control of the learned counsel which will constitute sufficient
cause within the definition of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. Accordingly, the application stands allowed.
Review Petition No.384/2015
1. This is a petition seeking review of the order dated 18.5.2015. I
have gone through the averments made in the application as well as heard
the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled that the review is
permissible only when there is an error apparent on the face of record or
in the order or that the appellant is able to lay his hands on some new
evidence which was not within his reach and knowledge earlier.
2. In the instant case the averments which have been made in the
application clearly reflect that the appellant after having failed to show
that the appeal of the appellant involves any substantial question of law
has made another attempt to argue the case on merits so as to re-open the
entire case afresh. This Court has already after hearing the learned
counsel for the appellant dealt with the so called questions of law which
were formulated by the appellant earlier and came to the conclusion that
none of the questions which have been raised by the appellant raise any
question of law much less a substantial question of law and, therefore the
impugned order, does not call for any interference by this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has also not been able to
show that judgment of the trial court or the first appellant court which has
upheld the same suffers from any perversity, therefore, this is only a fresh
attempt made by the appellant to argue the matter afresh which cannot be
permitted to be done under the garb of a review application.
4. In the light of the aforesaid the review petition is accordingly
dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2015
Aj
AD
