Roopa Khanna Vs Anil Varma & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Roopa Khanna Vs Anil Varma & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief: Review Petition No. 604/2025 dismissed and pending application CM APPL. 76948/2025 (stay) closed; ancillary applications disposed of - 41-day delay in re-filing condoned (CM APPL. 76950/2025) and exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions (CM APPL. 76949/2025).

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 23.09.2025 should be reviewed, given the Review Applicant's projection that the suit property comprised two separate units capable of physical division by metes and bounds.

Court's answer

The contention that the suit property was two separate units physically divisible by metes and bounds has already been considered by this Court in delivering the judgment dated 23.09.2025.

Ratio / Principle

For the sufficient reasons stated in the application, the delay of 41 days in re-filing Review Petition No. 604/2025 is condoned.

Key takeaways

The exemption application (CM APPL. 76949/2025) is allowed subject to all just exceptions.ratio¶17
Having previously accepted and then resiled from a right of pre-emption over the 4/9th share of the suit property, the Review Applicant cannot now be permitted to re-argue the Appeal; no merit is found in the Review Petition.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anil Kshetarpal & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.), order dated 05.12.2025 in EFA(OS) 15/2025 / Review Pet. 604/2025 (Roopa Khanna v. Anil Varma & Ors.): Delay of 41 days in re-filing the Review Petition seeking review of the Court's judgment dated 23.09.2025 is condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the exemption application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. On the merits, the petitioner's contention that the suit property comprised two separate units physically divisible by metes and bounds is held to have already been considered when the judgment was delivered. Noting that the petitioner had earlier been given, and had accepted, a right of pre-emption to purchase the 4/9th share of the suit property but subsequently resiled, the Court holds she cannot be permitted to re-argue the Appeal, finds no merit in the Review Petition, and dismisses it, closing the pending stay application. A Special Leave Petition (No. 29253/2025) previously filed before the Supreme Court against the same judgment had been dismissed, the Supreme Court finding no case made out for interference with the impugned order.

$~12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- EFA(OS) 15/2025

ROOPA KHANNA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Parijat, Mr. Shikher Upadhyay and Ms. Alankriti, Advs.

versus

ANIL VARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ateev Mathur, Mr. Amol Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025

CM APPL. 76950/2025 (delay of 41 days in filing review petition)

By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Review Applicant seeks condonation of delay of 41 days in re-filing the Review Petition No. 604/2025.

For the sufficient reasons as stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 76949/2025 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 604/2025 and CM APPL. 76948/2025 (stay)

A Special Leave Petition (SLP) bearing No. 29253/2025 was filed before the Supreme Court by the Review Applicant against the judgment passed by this Court on 23.09.2025.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:43:51

The aforesaid SLP has been dismissed and the following order was passed by the Supreme Court:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. We do not find any case is made out for interference with the impugned order. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

3. Pending application also stands disposed of.”

Now the Review Applicant seeks review of the judgment dated 23.09.2025, while projecting that the suit property was two separate units, which could be physically divided by metes and bounds.

This aspect has already been considered by this Court while delivering the judgment. It is noticed that at one stage the Review Applicant was given the right of pre-emption to purchase the 4/9^th share of the suit property, to which she agreed. However, she subsequently resiled.

In these circumstances, the Review Applicant cannot be permitted now to re-argue the Appeal. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the Review Petition and the same is dismissed. The pending application is also closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. DECEMBER 05, 2025 /sp/dev

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/12/2025 at 11:43:51