Delhi High Court
Faqir Chand & Ors. vs Nisha & Ors. on 13 February, 2019
$~SB-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA 185/2017
FAQIR CHAND & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Harpreet
Singh, Advs.
Versus
NISHA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 13.02.2019
CM No.6815/2019 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
Review Petition No.58/2019 & CM No.6814/2019 (for condonation of
106 days delay in filing for review)
3. Review of paras 3 to 9 of the order dated 20th September, 2018,
though admitting this Second Appeal, but declining to frame substantial
questions of law as proposed by the counsel for the appellants/review
petitioners, is sought, after withdrawing SLP(C) No.32296/2018 preferred
against the said order with liberty to file Review Petition before this Court.
4. The counsel for the appellants/review petitioners, under his
signatures, in para 2(i) of the Review Petition has pleaded what transpired in
the hearing before the Supreme Court, though not so recorded in the order
dated 13th December, 2018 of the Supreme Court.
5. The practise, of Advocates under their signatures pleading what
transpired in the Court and which is not reflected in the orders of the Court
has but to be deprecated. The Courts speak only through their orders and
what is not contained in the order is not to be attributed to the Court.
6. A reading of the order of the Supreme Court does not show anything
as is attributed by the counsel for the appellants/review petitioners. On the
contrary, what the order dated 13th December, 2018 of the Supreme Court
shows is that no arguments even were addressed by the counsel for the
appellants/review petitioners before the Supreme Court and instead, the
counsel for the appellants/review petitioners, straightway when the matter
was called, prayed for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) with
liberty to file Review Petition before this Court and which liberty was
granted while dismissing SLP as withdrawn. The order does not record that
the prayer for withdrawal was made, after arguments or after some
arguments or that the Supreme Court expressed any view, as is attributed,
that there was any error apparent on the record and the appropriate remedy
was of review and not as had been claimed.
7. Such filing of SLP before the Supreme Court and withdrawal thereof
with liberty to file Review Petition is not to be abused, for using such orders
to convey to the Court that the Supreme Court desired this Court to consider
the review favourably, as is suggested in the Review Petition.
8. Even otherwise, the SLP as well this Review Petition were/have been
filed by a different counsel than who appeared before this Court on 20th
September, 2018. A bare reading of the Review Petition shows that the
appellants/review petitioners have not made out any ground as for review
and instead, the 'new counsel' engaged, is seeking a re-hearing. The same is
also beyond the domain of review jurisdiction. A litigant, by engaging
successive counsels, cannot have umpteen hearings.
9. Having gone through the Review Petition and having heard the
counsel for the appellants/review petitioners, no ground for review of the
aforesaid paragraphs of the order dated 20th September, 2018 is made out.
All that can be observed is that if at the time of hearing of the appeal, the
Court feels that any substantial question of law other than that framed in the
order dated 20th September, 2018 arises, the order dated 20th September,
2018 would not come in the way.
10. Review is also sought of para 29 of the order dated 20th September,
2018 directing the appellants/review petitioners to deposit a sum of
Rs.50,000/- per month in this Court with effect from the month of
November, 2018 till the disposal of the appeal, as a condition for grant of
stay of dispossession.
11. In the Review Petition, it is not pleaded that the property is not
capable of fetching Rs.50,000/- per month.
12. The counsel for the appellants/review petitioners also, inspite of
opportunity has not been able to show any such averment.
13. All that the counsel for the appellants/review petitioners pleads is that
in paragraph 27 of the order dated 20th September, 2018, it was wrongly
recorded that the appellants/review petitioners, during the pendency of the
First Appeal, were directed to deposit rent of Rs.2,500/- per month. It is
stated that the direction was for deposit of rent @ Rs.250/- per month.
14. The aforesaid fact, in the absence of any plea of the letting value of
the property being not Rs.50,000/- per month, does not entitle the
appellants/review petitioners to review of the direction for deposit of mesne
profits @ Rs.50,000/- per month and which direction was based, again on
what had transpired in the Court on that date and was recorded in the order.
15. No ground for review is made out.
16. Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
'bs'
