Full Text
Translation output
/ 2T HIGH COURT OF DELHI c.R.P.70120t1 NIRMAL TOWER BUILDING PVT LTD & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. Manmohan Sharma with Mr. Anurag Pratap, Advocates
Through: Dr. Manmohan Sharma with Mr. Anurag Pratap, Advocates
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS Throueh: ..... Respondents
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advocates for UOI/R-I
- k
Mr. Anuj Aggarwal & Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advocates for UOI/R-I
- k
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
'h 16.05.2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners had moved a review application before the trial Court for review of the
'h 16.05.2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioners had moved a review application before the trial Court for review of the
ORDER
dated 12tr' July, 2007 of the Additional District Judge whereby their appeal under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1977 was dismissed. That review application was dismissed in default on 23'd April, 2009. Then an application for restoration of the review application was filed but the same was also dismissed in default on 6m June, 2009.
The petitioners then filed another application for restoration of their application which was dismissed in default on 6'h June, 2009. That application was dismissed vide order dated 3'd September, 2009 and that order is now sought to be challenged by the petitioners.
The learned trial Court has observed that the petitioners have failed to give any sufficient cause for their absence on 23'd April, 2009 and 6th June, 2009 and that the petitioners have not been vigilant in pursuing their applications. c.R.P.70t20rl Pase I of2
2011:DHC:10159 -- Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited one decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court tn "Rafiq Vs. MunsltilaP', AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1400 in support of his submission that for the fault of the counsel for the petitioners they should not suffer.
I do not find any material irregularity committed by the learned trial Court justiffing any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court since it was not the case of the petitioners before the trial Court that their counsel was negligent in not appearing in the matter.
Dismissed.
MAY l6,20tllpg <* P.K. BHASIN,J c.R.P.70/2011 Pase? ofZ
2011:DHC:10159
Occupants) Act, 1977 was dismissed. That review application was dismissed in default on 23'd April, 2009. Then an application for restoration of the review application was filed but the same was also dismissed in default on 6m June, 2009.
The petitioners then filed another application for restoration of their application which was dismissed in default on 6'h June, 2009. That application was dismissed vide order dated 3'd September, 2009 and that order is now sought to be challenged by the petitioners.
The learned trial Court has observed that the petitioners have failed to give any sufficient cause for their absence on 23'd April, 2009 and 6th June, 2009 and that the petitioners have not been vigilant in pursuing their applications. c.R.P.70t20rl Pase I of2
2011:DHC:10159 -- Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited one decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court tn "Rafiq Vs. MunsltilaP', AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1400 in support of his submission that for the fault of the counsel for the petitioners they should not suffer.
I do not find any material irregularity committed by the learned trial Court justiffing any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court since it was not the case of the petitioners before the trial Court that their counsel was negligent in not appearing in the matter.
Dismissed.
MAY l6,20tllpg <* P.K. BHASIN,J c.R.P.70/2011 Pase? ofZ
2011:DHC:10159