The High Court of Delhi held that a civil revision is not maintainable against an order dismissing a review application, as the appealable order remains the original decree. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal instead.
Petitioner directed to institute an appeal; revision petition dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Judgment reserved on : 10 January 2024 Judgment pronounced on : 19 January 2024 + C.R.P. 90/2022, CM APPL. 29867/2022
DEEPAK AGGARWAL AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sarthak Sharma & Mr. Pranav Menon, Advocates.
versus
GYAN CHAND SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS
..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
CM APPL. 29868/2022
CM APPL. 29866/2022
1 CPC
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 5
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODC.R.P. 90/2022 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.01.2024 19:05:42
subsequent order arising from their review application dated 08.06.2022, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the review application and has reiterated the original order dated 11.08.2017, whereby the suit was held to have been abated in terms of Order XXII Rule 9 of the CPC. The application for condonation of delay becomes inconsequential since the present revision petition raises a pure question of law.
C.R.P. 90/2022
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 5
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODC.R.P. 90/2022 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.01.2024 19:05:42
“I have, carefully, considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the entire record and has also gone through the contents of the order dated 03.09.2013, passed by my Ld. Predecessor and I am fully convinced that the plaintiff should have moved an application for setting aside the abatement, already ensuing, and not the present application, merely, to bring the proposed LRs of deceased defendant on record, when on his own saying, that the defendant died on 24.10.2013, as mentioned in the present application and parties, residing in the same building as apparent from their addresses available on record and even service of summons, to the proposed LRs being made on the same address/addresses and as such, it is unbelievable that the plaintiff was not aware of the death of the defendant, on 24.10.2013, earlier than the second week of March, 2014 and as such the application for condonation of delay does not disclose sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 56 days and is hereby, rejected, consequently the present application, moved U/o 22 Rule 4 , CPC also fails and suit abates. File be consigned to Record Room.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 5
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODC.R.P. 90/2022 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.01.2024 19:05:42
matter since it does not deal with a situation wherein the substantive order merges with the order of review.
“24. What is clear from the above observations is, that where the review is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or modified, such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with such vacation of the earlier decree or order, passes another decree or order or modifies the one made earlier. The decree so vacated, reversed or modified is then the decree that is effective for the purposes of a further appeal, if any, maintainable under law. But where the review petition is dismissed, there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or order of the Tribunal or Court shall have to challenge within the time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently pursuing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate case be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition.”
{ Bold portions emphasized}
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1226
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 5
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODC.R.P. 90/2022 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.01.2024 19:05:42
exercise its powers under Order XXII Rule 9 (2)3 of the CPC and has not found any sufficient cause that prevented the petitioners/plaintiffs from filing application for setting aside the abatement or dismissal within the stipulated period of limitation, and the said order is patently appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 (k) of the CPC.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 19, 2024
Sadique
3 9. Effect of abatement or dismissal.-
(2) The plaintiff or the person claiming to be the legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or the assignee or the receiver in the case of an insolvent plaintiff may apply for an order to set aside the abatement or dismissal, and if it is proved that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from continuing the suit, the Court shall set aside the abatement of dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit.
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 5
Digitally Signed By:PRAMODC.R.P. 90/2022 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:20.01.2024 19:05:42
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil revision petition is maintainable when the original appealable order was dismissed via a review application.
Whether there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition regarding appeal maintainability.
Whether the Court can condone the withdrawal of the revision petition on the day of pronouncement without respondent consent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rahimal Bathu and Ors. v. Ashiyal BeeviReferred¶37
Rahimal Bathu and Ors. v. Ashiyal Beevi
8 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Aggarwal and Anr
Gyan Chand Since Deceased Through LRS
Dharmesh Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
