Full Text
Translation output
q---"' HIGH COURT OF DELHI RC.REV. l2r/2011 & CMNo.7845/2011
NAFEES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advocate.
NAFEES ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. AjaY Kumar, Advocate.
VERSUS
JAAN MOHD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja & Mr. A.S' Juneja, Advs.
Through: Mr. R.S. Juneja & Mr. A.S' Juneja, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
'h 06.07.20t1.
Today counsel for the petitioner submitted that though one of the grounds taken in the present revision petition was that the respondentJandlord had concealed a material fact from the trial Court regarding his being in possession of another shop on the rear side of his house but that ground was not taken in the leave to contest application since that fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioner at that time. It is submitted that the petitioner now intends moving a review application before the trial Court for recalling of the impugned eviction order on the basis of the aforesaid ground only which earlier could not be pleaded there and, therefore, the only relief which now he is seeking today is for grant of one month's time to enable the petitioner to move a review application and during that period of one month the execution of the impugned eviction order may be stayed and the revision petition can be disposed ofas not pressed.
Counsel for the respondent-landlord is agreeable for giving one month's stay against the impugned eviction order.
This petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. However, the imprigned eviction order shall not be executed for a period of one month from today. It is, however, made clear that in case any review application is moved by the petitioner before the trial
Court the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law uninfluenced by the filing of the present revision petition and its not being pressed today.
A copy ofthis order be given dasti to counsel for the
- */- \- (t a{I tioner, as requested.
JULY 06,201l/nk 2011:DHC:18608
'h 06.07.20t1.
Today counsel for the petitioner submitted that though one of the grounds taken in the present revision petition was that the respondentJandlord had concealed a material fact from the trial Court regarding his being in possession of another shop on the rear side of his house but that ground was not taken in the leave to contest application since that fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioner at that time. It is submitted that the petitioner now intends moving a review application before the trial Court for recalling of the impugned eviction order on the basis of the aforesaid ground only which earlier could not be pleaded there and, therefore, the only relief which now he is seeking today is for grant of one month's time to enable the petitioner to move a review application and during that period of one month the execution of the impugned eviction order may be stayed and the revision petition can be disposed ofas not pressed.
Counsel for the respondent-landlord is agreeable for giving one month's stay against the impugned eviction order.
This petition is accordingly dismissed as not pressed. However, the imprigned eviction order shall not be executed for a period of one month from today. It is, however, made clear that in case any review application is moved by the petitioner before the trial
Court the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law uninfluenced by the filing of the present revision petition and its not being pressed today.
A copy ofthis order be given dasti to counsel for the
- */- \- (t a{I tioner, as requested.
JULY 06,201l/nk 2011:DHC:18608
JUDGMENT