Full Text
Translation output
[p
I.•. A-18
H
% 21.07.2011
Present: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M) No. 1560/2007 & CM No. 16398/2007
/ *
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
05.10.2007 vide which the application seeking review of the order dated 01.05.2007 had been dismissed.
Vide order dated 01.05.2007, after hearing arguments on the preliminary issue, the Court had held that the suit filed in the present form is maintainable. The facts as emanating from the record shows that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction; his contention is that he is in actual and physical cultivatory possession of 1 bigha and 10 biswas of land in Khasra
No. 747, revenue estate of village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi; his further contention is that the defendant had tried to physically dispossess him on 13.11.2005 when the cause of action had accrued in his favour; injunction had been sought against the defendant. On 20.10.2006, a preliminary issue was framed. It reads as under:-
"Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain present suit in view of provision of Delhi Rent Control Act?
This preliminary issue had been decided vide order dated
01.05.2007. The court was of the view that the suit for permanent
2011:DHC:7547
I injunction is maintainable in the present form; this preliminary issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly the defendant has not chosen to file appeal against the said order; he had chosen the forum of review. This review had been dismissed on
05.10.2007.
The parameters for dealing with the application under Order
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure are contained in the said statutory provision; until and unless the same are satisfied, no ground is made out for review. It was also not the case of the defendant that there has been a discovery of any new or important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made or there is an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Needless to say that scope of dealing with the application under Order 47 of the Code is different and distinct from the guidelines which have been adopted by the court while sitting as an appellate forum. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 21, 2011 a
/ 2011:DHC:7547
I.•. A-18
H
% 21.07.2011
Present: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Panwar, Advocate for the respondent.
+ CM(M) No. 1560/2007 & CM No. 16398/2007
/ *
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
05.10.2007 vide which the application seeking review of the order dated 01.05.2007 had been dismissed.
Vide order dated 01.05.2007, after hearing arguments on the preliminary issue, the Court had held that the suit filed in the present form is maintainable. The facts as emanating from the record shows that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction; his contention is that he is in actual and physical cultivatory possession of 1 bigha and 10 biswas of land in Khasra
No. 747, revenue estate of village Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi; his further contention is that the defendant had tried to physically dispossess him on 13.11.2005 when the cause of action had accrued in his favour; injunction had been sought against the defendant. On 20.10.2006, a preliminary issue was framed. It reads as under:-
"Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain present suit in view of provision of Delhi Rent Control Act?
This preliminary issue had been decided vide order dated
01.05.2007. The court was of the view that the suit for permanent
2011:DHC:7547
I injunction is maintainable in the present form; this preliminary issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly the defendant has not chosen to file appeal against the said order; he had chosen the forum of review. This review had been dismissed on
05.10.2007.
The parameters for dealing with the application under Order
47 of the Code of Civil Procedure are contained in the said statutory provision; until and unless the same are satisfied, no ground is made out for review. It was also not the case of the defendant that there has been a discovery of any new or important matter of evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made or there is an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Needless to say that scope of dealing with the application under Order 47 of the Code is different and distinct from the guidelines which have been adopted by the court while sitting as an appellate forum. The impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 21, 2011 a
/ 2011:DHC:7547
JUDGMENT