Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
REVIEW PETITION 169/2023, CM APPL.33302/2023, CM
Through: Mr. Vinay Rathi, Adv.
Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, Adv. for R-1
04.07.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1961, for condonation of delay in filing Review Petition 169/2023.
2. As the Court is dismissing the Review Petition by the accompanying order on merits, the delay shall stand condoned.
3. The order of which review is sought in this Review Petition reads thus:
4. By the order under review, this Court dismissed the petition on two grounds, both of which related to the fact that the petitioner had been served a notice requiring her to vacate the premises forming subject matter of the controversy on 10 October 2022. This Court noted, in the first instance, that the petition made no mention of the fact that such a notice had been served on her, though the petition was filed on 11 October 2022. The second was that, even during hearing, this Court was not informed that the petitioner had been served with an eviction notice on 10 October 2022.
5. On the ground that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, the petition was dismissed.
6. Mr. Vinay Rathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, arguing the Review Petition, submits that the petition was originally filed on 27 September 2022 and that defects had been removed thereafter.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that the petition has been filed under an Index dated 11 October 2022. The urgent application filed alongwith the petition is also dated 11 October 2022. So is the notice of motion filed with the petition and the memo of parties under which the petition has been filed. The date figuring at the end of the petition, after the prayer clause and below the signature of the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also 11 October 2022. The affidavit accompanying the petition is also verified on 11 October 2022 and certified by the oath commissioner on 11 October 2022.
8. There is no error, therefore, in the finding of this Court that there was a deliberate concealment, in the petition, of the fact that, on 10 October 2022, the petitioner had been served an eviction notice, requiring her to vacate the premises in question. I may note that it is not the contention of Mr. Rathi that the eviction notice had not been served on the petitioner on 10 October 2022.
9. Besides, this Court noted that, when the matter was argued on 13 October 2022, too, the Court was not apprised of the fact that an eviction notice had been served on the petitioner on 10 October 2022.
10. This aspect of the matter cannot possibly be contested by Mr. Rathi especially as he was not the Counsel who had argued the matter before this Court. I may note that the Supreme Court has, on more occasion than one disapproved of the fact of review petitions being argued by Counsel other than those who had argued the matter originally, as the said learned Counsel would not be aware of what had transpired before the Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to entertain this Review Petition. There is no error apparent on the face of the record of the order under review.
12. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J JULY 4, 2023