Full Judgment Text
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Judgment delivered on: 19 January, 2016
+ CONT.CAS(C) 795/2013
KULDIP KAUR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Anil Sapra, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Suman Malhotra and Ms. Ishita
Yadav, Advs.
versus
SMT SURINDER KAUR ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Raman Kapoor,
Sr.Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Vishnu, Mr. Anil
Kumar Gupta and Ms. Mahak Gupta, Advs.
in Review Petition no. 425/2015.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
C.M. No. 18651/2015
In view of the averments made in the instant application, the
delay of 68 days in filing the review petition is condoned.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CM. No. 26978/2015
In view of the averments made in the instant application, the
delay of 4 days in filing the reply to the review petition is condoned
and the reply is taken on record.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
Cont. Cas (C) 795/2013 Page 1 of 6
REV PET. NO. 425/2015
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner Mira Mittal seeks recalling
of order dated 05.02.2015 passed in Contempt Cas (C) 795/2013 and
order dated 23.02.2015 passed in CM. No. 3098/2015.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the Review Petition was
not a party in the Contempt Case mentioned above and vide order
dated 05.02.2015, this Court declared that Sale Deed dated 31.08.1992
executed in violation of order dated 24.07.1984 has no consequences,
accordingly, set aside being null and void keeping in view the law
settled in All Bengal Excise Licenses Association v. Raghavendra
Singh and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1386.
3. Mr. Anil Sapra, ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner Kuldip Kaur in the Contempt Petition submitted that since
the petitioner in the Review Petition was not a party in the Contempt
Petition mentioned above, therefore, the present petition is not
maintainable and to strengthen his arguments, he has relied upon
Bharat Singh v. Firm Sheo Parshad Giani Ram and Ors . AIR 1978
Delhi 122 wherein it is held as under:
“(31) In our opinion, it is not necessary to go into the
facts of the case because the impugned order dismissing
the review application can be upheld on a preliminary
point, namely, that no review petition under Order 47,
rule I Civil Procedure Code could be filed by Bharat
Singh. Order 47, rule I Civil Procedure Code reads as
under:-
"1. (1) Any person considering himself
aggrieved:-
Cont. Cas (C) 795/2013 Page 2 of 6
(A) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which no
appeal has been preferred,
(B) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed, or
(C) by a decision on a reference from a
Court of Small Causes, and who, from the
discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within his knowledge
or could not be produced by him at the
time when the decree was passed or order
made, or on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record,
or for any other sufficient reason, desires
to obtain a review of the decree passed or
order made against him, may apply for a
review of judgment to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order."
On a very reading of the rule it is clear that a review
application can be filled only by a party to the lis in
which the order sought to be reviewed has been passed.
It cannot be preferred by a third party. It was urged on
behalf of the petitioner that the phrase "any person
considering himself aggrieved" would include anyone
who is adversely affected by the impugned order,
whether that person is or is not party to the list in which
the impugned order has been passed. We do not agree.
As will be apparent from a reading of the rule any
person considering himself aggrieved by a decree or
order may apply for review provided he can establish
that he "from the discovery of new and important
matters of evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was passed
or order made." This postulates that the person applying
Cont. Cas (C) 795/2013 Page 3 of 6
for review has to satisfy two conditions, namely, that he
is aggrieved by the order and also that he for the
reasons mentioned was not in a position to bring that
fact to the notice of the Court earlier which resulted in a
wrong order being passed. If these two conditions are
necessary before a review application can be moved, it
follows that the review application has to be made by a
person who was a party to the list decided by the
impugned order or decree.”
4. Also relied upon case of Bangalore Development Authority
and etc. v. P. Anjanappa (since deceased by L.R.s) and Ors. 2004
AIHC 534 of Karnataka Court, wherein it is held as under:
“11. The preliminary objection raised by learned
Counsel for private respondents need not detain me for
long, in view of the settled legal position. It is now well-
settled that a review application can be filed only by a
party to the Us in which the order sought to be reviewed
has been passed. It cannot be preferred by a third party.
Alternatively, the review petition cannot be filed by a
party who is not a party to the suit. It is not in dispute
nor can it be disputed that the petitioners in Review
Petition No. 752 of 2001 were not parties before the
Trial Court nor parties to the proceedings before this
Court in the M.F.A. filed by BDA against the order
passed by the Trial Court granting temporary injunction
against BDA. Therefore, petitioners cannot seek review
of an order in which they were not parties to the lis.
Therefore, the review petition filed by allottees requires
to be rejected. In view of this finding, it may not be
necessary to consider the application filed by BDA
under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the CPC, wherein a prayer
to transpose BDA as petitioner 17 in the review petition
filed by the private parties is made. Accordingly, the
said application is rejected as unnecessary.”
Cont. Cas (C) 795/2013 Page 4 of 6
5. The fact remains that petitioner herein entered into an
agreement to sell and purchase with Smt. Surinder Kaur, respondent in
the Contempt Petition whereby the property in question was agreed to
sell for an amount of Rs.45,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner herein
paid an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.5,000/- at the time of Execution
of the Sale Deed.
6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to Agreement to Sell petitioner
Mira Mittal has been in possession of the property in question till date.
7. It is informed by the counsel for the petitioner Kuldip Kaur that
the property in question has already been jointly sold by the petitioner
and respondent in the Contempt Petition to a third party on 05.03.2015
8. It is pertinent to mention here that order dated 05.02.2015 was
passed on the submissions made by the petitioner and respondent in
the contempt petition. However, neither of the parties disclosed that
petitioner herein had entered into an agreement to sell with respondent
in the contempt case in the year 1981 and the said documents were
executed before the order dated 24.07.1984 against which the
aforesaid Contempt case had arisen and filed in the year 2013.
Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner Kuldip Kaur
have no bearing.
9. Since, the petitioner in the Review Petition is affected by the
order dated 05.02.2015 and the facts narrated in the present petition
Cont. Cas (C) 795/2013 Page 5 of 6
were not brought before this Court, therefore, Para 12 of order dated
05.02.2015 is hereby set aside.
10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
11. Consequently, interested parties are at liberty to approach the
proper Forum for establishing their rights over the property in
question.
12. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
JANUARY 19, 2016
jg
Cont. Cas (C) 795/2013 Page 6 of 6