Through: Mr.Nitinjay Choudhary, Advocate v. SH. BABU RAM GUPTA & ORS. ..... Defendants

1. This review petition is filed against the judgment dated 03.9.2012 by which the suit filed by the review petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed with costs.

2. Today the only argument which is urged before this Court is that this Court has wrongly recorded the admission in para nos. 4 to 10 of the judgment dated 03.9.2012 that it was conceded on behalf of the review petitioners/plaintiffs that the review petitioners/plaintiffs have received the balance consideration. It is argued that no such concession was given. 2014:DHC:6540

3. The judgment in this case was passed on 03.9.2012. The present review petition alleging that the concession has not been given has been filed on 02.5.2014 i.e roughly after about one year and 8 months of passing of the judgment on 03.9.2012 and is coming up for effective hearing at the end of November, 2014.

4. Surely the litigants cannot expect that after doing hundreds/ thousands of cases during one year and eight to ten months, courts are expected to remember what transpired more than one year and eight to ten months prior to filing of the review petition. Also, I may note that though the review petition is stated to have been filed on 02.5.2014, for the first time the review petition was brought up for hearing before this Court on 11.7.2014 i.e after about one year and ten months of passing of the judgment dated 03.9.2012 and for first effective hearing for today. 5(i) I would like to note that the review petitioners/plaintiffs had challenged the judgment dated 03.9.2012 in an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and that appeal admittedly has been dismissed as withdrawn on 18.2.2014.

(ii) In the present case since the review petition is filed one year and eight months after passing of the judgment dated 03.9.2012 and was brought up for hearing for the first time after one year and ten months of passing of the judgment dated 03.9.2012, surely no court can humanly remember what would have transpired one year and eight months/ten months prior to filing of the review petition. It is for this reason only that the Supreme Court has mandated that the application for correction must be filed when the matter is fresh in the mind of the Court.

6. The Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 463 has made it absolutely clear that if there is an error in the judicial record, that error can only be corrected when the concerned party, who states that there is an error, approaches the court without any delay and when the matter is fresh in the mind of the court which has recorded the judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court has clarified that if this is not done, there is no other way to get the judicial record corrected.

7. Counsel for the review petitioners argues that the review petitioners/plaintiffs had filed an appeal against the judgment dated 03.9.2012 and therefore there is a delay in filing of the present review petition. However, I fail to understand how can that in any manner change the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas Shrinivas (supra) because the Supreme Court in this case has made it absolutely clear that the courts whose judicial record is sought to be got corrected the same must be done without any delay i.e when the matter is fresh in the mind of the Judges, and therefore merely because the review petitioners have filed an appeal against the judgment dated 03.9.2012 the same cannot in any manner mean that if assumedly there was any factual error in the judgment dated 03.9.2012 that assumed factual error should not have been got corrected immediately after passing of the judgment dated 03.9.2012 and by filing of the appeal there is as if an ‘extension’ of period to get the judicial record corrected.

8. I may note that the impugned judgment dated 03.9.2012 dismisses the suit and makes serious observations against the plaintiffs/ review petitioners while dismissing the suit and also imposes actual costs in terms of the para 16 of the judgment. The plaintiffs/review petitioners are however no wises and intends to keep the baseless suit alive for no reason.

9. In view of the above, the present review petition being wholly frivolous and a complete abuse of the process of the law is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. Costs shall be paid to the defendants within a period of four weeks from today.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J NOVEMBER 28, 2014