Pawan Kr. Gupta vs M/S Chandra Associates Pvt. Ltd.
2016 Latest Caselaw 1222 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                   Judgment pronounced on : 16th February, 2016

+                   R.P. No.49/2014 in CM(M) 317/2013

       PAWAN KR. GUPTA                             ..... Petitioner
                   Through         Mr.Kuldeep Singh, Adv.

                         versus

       M/S CHANDRA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.     ..... Respondent
                    Through Mr.Samrat K.Nigam, Adv. with
                            Ms.Ayshwarya Chandar, Adv. for
                            R-1.
                            Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Adv.for R-2.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The demised premises bearing No. A-15A Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which was previously owned by Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta was purchased by the respondent No.1 (the petitioners in the eviction petition) herein vide Sale Deed on 12th August, 1986. Late Smt. Krishna Gupta the respondent No.1 in the eviction petition was the tenant of erstwhile owner. It was the case of the respondent No.1 that she had sub-let the demised premises to Shri Arun Chopra the respondent No.2 in the eviction petition who claims to be in possession of the tenanted premises.

2. The respondent No.1 herein filed an eviction petition against Smt. Krishna Gupta and Shri Arun Chopra under Section 14 (1) (b) of

the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on 25th April, 1995. The same is still pending. The record of the eviction petition shows that the said Smt. Krishna Gupta (respondent No.1 in the eviction petition) was served with the summons issued by the Rent Controller.

3. She was proceeded ex-parte on 27th November, 1996. She expired in March, 2006. After the gap of number of years the legal representatives of Smt. Krishna Gupta filed an application under Order IX Rule 7 read with Order XXII Rule 4 CPC, for setting aside the order dated 27th November, 1996 directing that Smt. Krishna Gupta be proceeded ex-parte and seeking to bring on record her legal representatives. The application for setting aside the order directing that Smt. Krishna Gupta be proceeded ex-parte was dismissed by order dated 18th September, 2012 but the legal representatives of Smt. Krishna Gupta were brought on record.

4. The said order dated 18th September, 2012 was challenged before this Court by the said legal representatives of Late Smt. Krishna Gupta (the petitioners herein) before this Court in C.M. (Main) No. 317/2013 and the same was dismissed on 17th December, 2013 by passing the detailed order.

5. Now the present review petition has been filed seeking a review of the order dated 17th December, 2013 passed by this Court on the reasons that there was no property at 446 Sainik Farms, New Delhi where she was purportedly served while her address was 186 Cariappa Marg, M.B. Road, Sainik Farms, New Delhi and this Court in its order dated 17th December, 2013 has failed to give its finding

with regard to non-service of summons of the eviction petition to Late Smt. Krishna Gupta. The petitioners and respondent No.2 have made their submissions. They have also referred the trial court order. It is submitted that there was no dasti order but despite of the same, the respondent No.1 had accompanied the process server. She was identified by Manoj Singhal, who was the director of respondent No.1. This service report creates suspicion. The service was made at 186 Cariappa Marg, M.B. Road, Sainik Farms, New Delhi though the property falls in Khasra No.446 and under this khasra many other properties fall. Counsel has referred the decision of Flight Centre Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Nath, 190 (2012) DLT 367. I have heard both the parties.

6. The many grounds raised to seek review of the judgment dated 17th December, 2013 passed by this Court are not correct. The judgment dated 17th December, 2013 passed by this Court would reveal that the issue with regard to the correct address of the Late Smt. Krishna Gupta has been discussed in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgment dated 17th December, 2013 while paragraph 13 of the said judgment deals with the aspect of the service of summons issued by the Rent Controller upon Late Smt. Krishna Gupta. Thus, there is no infirmity in the said judgment dated 17th December, 2013. As far as the judgment referred by counsel in Flight Centre Travels (supra) is concerned, the same has been over ruled by the Division Bench of this Court.

7. The scope of adjudication in an application under the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC 1908 is well established. The party cannot be allowed to re-array the matter in view of a review.

8. This Court in the case of Cogent EMR Solutions Limited v. Virender Kumar Sharma, (2009) 111 DRJ 673 held that :

"The scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. The power of review under this provision can be exercised inter alia, only if there is a mistake or "an error apparent on the face of the record". The said power cannot be exercised for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". Review application also cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." The error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error, which must strike one on mere looking at record and power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable the appellate Court to correct all errors of subordinate Court. Further, the contentions raised and decided in main proceedings, cannot be re-opened/ re-agitated under the guise of review petition. The scope of review is for review of "error apparent" only and not to review the judgment/order, even if the parties are in a position to satisfy the court that the order under review is an erroneous."

9. Thus, in view of aforesaid reasons, the review petition filed against the judgment does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The application is accordingly dismissed.

10. The trial court record be sent back by the Registry forthwith without any delay.

11. No costs.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 16, 2016