WPMS/3169/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 1174 UK

             Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings
SL.
      Date     or directions and                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             Registrar's order with
                  Signatures

                                      WPMS No. 3169 of 2018
                                      Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State.

Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

The Review Application No. 726/2019 has been preferred by the petitioner, seeking review of the judgment dated 23.10.2018, which is supported with a Delay Condonation Application No. 10362/2019, explaining the delay of 246 days, which has chanced.

The Delay Condonation Application is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, who has filed his objection, contending thereof that the reasons for delay, which has been given in the delay condonation application, do not repose much confidence, for the reason being that, the knowledge of the judgment dated 23.10.2018, was attributed to the petitioner, right from the very beginning i.e. from the date of its rendering i.e. dated 23.10.2018. But, taking a lenient view, as far as the delay condonation application is concerned, the same would stand allowed. Accordingly, the delay, which has chanced in filing the review application, would stand condoned.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the review itself is being heard on merits.

The review, which has been sought by the petitioner, to the judgement dated 23.10.2018, is on account of the fact that, he has carved out a case by way of an exception, from the perspective that, in the proceedings of a Suit, being Suit No. 15 of 2003, which was initiated under Section 5A of the Societies Registration Act, for the grant of a permission by the District Judge to sell the property, the petitioner was not a party to the proceedings and this is a new fact, which has been brought on record by virtue of the review applicant, which according to him, would always constitutes to be falling within the scope of filing of a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, the report, which was given on 29.07.2018, was not taken into consideration. These alleged anomalies, which are based on the new facts, which have been brought on record in the review application, cannot be a foundation to consider the review application entailing re-adjudication, in seeking review of the judgment dated 23.10.2018, as these were the situations, which were pre- existing at the time, when the writ petition itself, was adjudicated on its merits; but, it was not brought on record.

In that view of the matter, the review application would stand rejected.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 25.03.2021 Mahinder/