Full Text
Translation output
A-49
% 03.08.2011
Present: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidharth
Bambha, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM (M) No. 886/2011 & CM No. 14296/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the, order dated
04.01.2011 vide which the review application seeking review of order dated 22.11.2010 had been dismissed. By way of this petition, the petitioner has impugned both the orders i.e. order dated 22.11.2010 as also the order dated 04.01.2011. A composite petition challenging both the orders is not maintainable. However in view of the arguments urged and addressed before this Court, this Court has proceeded to deal with the case on its merits.
Record shows that the parties are closely related. One set of parties comprise of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4; second set of parties is defendant No. 1. The petitioner before this Court is defendant No. 1. Admittedly, a preliminary decree of partition had been filed qua the suit property whereby in terms of the order of the High Court dated 30.05.2006, the parties had been given time to give their respective bids qua the suit property; highest bidder would be directed to deposit the earnest money forthwith; he would also make payment of his share within the time stipulated by the trial court; in case the highest bidder fails to do so, the next
2011:DHC:8825
W
-M highest bid will accordingly be considered. The highest bid was admittedly by the petitioner and defendants No. 2 to 4. They had bid at '41 lacs; the bid of the petitioner was '18 lacs. The trial
Court had extended time to the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4 to make the payment and lastly time was extended on 22.11.2010.
Up to 22.11.2010, '4 lacs had been paid and the balance amount of about '11 lacs was yet to be paid; admittedly the balance amount has also since been deposited before the next date i.e. by
14.12.2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2010, the petitioner had filed a review petition which had been dismissed on
04.01.2011. The Court while dismissing the review petition on
04.01.2011 had taken into account the guidelines and parameters which have to be kept in mind by the Court while dealing with a review petition. The Court had noted that there is no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record of the order dated
22.11.2010 which warrants any interference in review. Review petition had thus rightly been considered and dismissed. The order dated 22.11.2010 had also granted extension of time to the non- applicants to make the balance payment; this discretion had been afforded to the trial Court in terms of directions of the High Court dated 30.05.2006; the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that this was an unwarranted extension and there was no reason as to why extensions continued to be granted from 30.05.2006 up to 22.11.2010. He has placed reliance upon a
% 03.08.2011
Present: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sidharth
Bambha, Advocate for the petitioner.
+CM (M) No. 886/2011 & CM No. 14296/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the, order dated
04.01.2011 vide which the review application seeking review of order dated 22.11.2010 had been dismissed. By way of this petition, the petitioner has impugned both the orders i.e. order dated 22.11.2010 as also the order dated 04.01.2011. A composite petition challenging both the orders is not maintainable. However in view of the arguments urged and addressed before this Court, this Court has proceeded to deal with the case on its merits.
Record shows that the parties are closely related. One set of parties comprise of the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4; second set of parties is defendant No. 1. The petitioner before this Court is defendant No. 1. Admittedly, a preliminary decree of partition had been filed qua the suit property whereby in terms of the order of the High Court dated 30.05.2006, the parties had been given time to give their respective bids qua the suit property; highest bidder would be directed to deposit the earnest money forthwith; he would also make payment of his share within the time stipulated by the trial court; in case the highest bidder fails to do so, the next
2011:DHC:8825
W
-M highest bid will accordingly be considered. The highest bid was admittedly by the petitioner and defendants No. 2 to 4. They had bid at '41 lacs; the bid of the petitioner was '18 lacs. The trial
Court had extended time to the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 4 to make the payment and lastly time was extended on 22.11.2010.
Up to 22.11.2010, '4 lacs had been paid and the balance amount of about '11 lacs was yet to be paid; admittedly the balance amount has also since been deposited before the next date i.e. by
14.12.2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2010, the petitioner had filed a review petition which had been dismissed on
04.01.2011. The Court while dismissing the review petition on
04.01.2011 had taken into account the guidelines and parameters which have to be kept in mind by the Court while dealing with a review petition. The Court had noted that there is no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record of the order dated
22.11.2010 which warrants any interference in review. Review petition had thus rightly been considered and dismissed. The order dated 22.11.2010 had also granted extension of time to the non- applicants to make the balance payment; this discretion had been afforded to the trial Court in terms of directions of the High Court dated 30.05.2006; the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that this was an unwarranted extension and there was no reason as to why extensions continued to be granted from 30.05.2006 up to 22.11.2010. He has placed reliance upon a
JUDGMENT
of Bench of this Court reported in 2006
III AD (Delhi) 210 V/lay Sagar Vs. Shri Sunder La] Sacrarto support his submission that where a compromise has been arrived at and time has been extended time and again, the property prices which have since been risen; in such eventuality the Court must reconsider the terms of the bid. This judgment would not apply to the facts of the case. Admittedly time had been granted by the trial court in terms of directions of the High Court which had left time stipulated to be decided by the trial court. Up to 22.11.2010 the petitioner himself had raised no grievance; for the first time he had filed a review against that order.
The impugned orders warrant no interfe enc
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 03, 2011 a
III AD (Delhi) 210 V/lay Sagar Vs. Shri Sunder La] Sacrarto support his submission that where a compromise has been arrived at and time has been extended time and again, the property prices which have since been risen; in such eventuality the Court must reconsider the terms of the bid. This judgment would not apply to the facts of the case. Admittedly time had been granted by the trial court in terms of directions of the High Court which had left time stipulated to be decided by the trial court. Up to 22.11.2010 the petitioner himself had raised no grievance; for the first time he had filed a review against that order.
The impugned orders warrant no interfe enc
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 03, 2011 a