M/S Sumac International Limited ... vs M/S Gases And Equipments India Pvt ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 16806 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128071




            RA-RS-65-2023 (O&M) in
            RSA-1492-2006

            SUMAC INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANR.
            VS
            M/S GASES AND EQUIPMENTS (INDIA) PVT.
            LTD. AND ORS.

Present:    Mr. A.K. Verma, review-applicant/appellant
            in person.

            **

1. This review application has been filed by the appellant in a

finally decided Regular Second Appeal along with an application for

condoning the delay of 534 days in filing the review application. The

application for condonation of delay shall be considered, if found necessary.

2. After having lost in the trial Court, First Appellate Court, High

Court and finally before the Supreme Court, the applicant has filed this

review application.

3. The petition for special leave to appeal filed by the applicant

was dismissed on 03.01.2022 with the following order:-

"The special leave petition is dismissed.

Pending application stands disposed of."

4. The applicant has appeared in person, who has been heard at

length. The applicant while referring to the interlocutory order passed by the

Court during the pendency of the appeal submits that the High Court has

permitted him to deposit the amount. It may be noted here that the applicant

has filed a suit for grant of decree of possession by way of specific

performance of the agreement to sell. All the three Courts held that the

plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and

therefore, no decree for specific performance could be passed. Hence, until

and unless such finding is set aside, the applicant cannot be permitted to

deposit the balance amount. The next argument is that the argument is

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128071

RA-RS-65-2023 (O&M) in

factually incorrect as defendant No.1 contested the suit before the trial

Court. Moreover, defendant No.4 has purchased the suit property. Even

before the First Appellate Court, defendant No.1 and 4 were represented by

the learned counsels. No doubt, before this Court, defendant No.1 was not

represented, however, that would not make any difference as such because

defendant No.4 has stepped into the shoes of defendant No.1.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to review the

detailed judgment passed on 12.03.2020, is made out.

6. Dismissed accordingly.

7. Since, the review application has been dismissed on merits,

hence, no further order on the application for condonation of delay is

required to be passed.

September 28th, 2023                  (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                          JUDGE




                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:128071

                                     2 of 2