The Single Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing a review petition, finding the explanation insufficient and the delay negligent. The review petition itself was also dismissed as time-barred and lacking merit.
application for condonation of delay dismissed; review petition dismissed as time-barred.
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 HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMP(M) No. 1943 of 2016
Decided on: 23rd June, 2017
Dr. Rita Bharwal .......Petitioner Versus Shri Raghav and others. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Pramod Thakur, Addl. A.G for respondent No.2.
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)
The delay of 45 days occurred in filing the review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed in Civil Revision No. 172 of 2015 has been sought to be condoned on the sole ground that application for obtaining certified copy of judgment sought to be reviewed on 19.07.2016, was prepared by the Copying Agency on 12.08.2016 and collected by the review-petitioner on 27.08.2016. After receipt of the
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
certified copy of judgment, legal opinion qua filing the review petition was obtained, which took considerable long time and as a result thereof, the delay has occurred in filing the review petition. It has been urged that the delay as occurred is neither intentional nor deliberate and rather the result of circumstances beyond the control of reviewpetitioner.
3
petition. On receipt of the certified copy of judgment sought to be reviewed, 45 days could have not been taken for obtaining the legal opinion in the matter, more particularly, when the review-petitioner was represented in the review petition by the same counsel, who has filed the present application. The review-petitioner was certainly negligent in the matter of pursuing the remedy of seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court in the review petition. Therefore, she has failed to show sufficient cause and also to make out a case for seeking condonation of delay as occurred in filing the review petition. On the other hand, the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing review petition, a valuable right has accrued in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, which cannot be taken away by allowing the application and thereby to condone the delay, that too, when sufficient cause has not been shown.
4
of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner-tenant for seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction has rightly been dismissed by learned trial Court. The order so passed has even been rightly affirmed by this Court while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the reviewpetitioner vide judgment sought to be reviewed while taking note of the provisions contained under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also the law cited at the Bar.
5
application is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition, which is time barred is also dismissed.
June 23, 2017 (Dharam Chand Chaudhary) (naveen) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay in filing the review petition.
Whether any material error existed on the face of the record to warrant granting the review.
Whether the dismissal of the tenant's application for dismissal of the suit on jurisdiction grounds was proper under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Rita Bharwal
Raghav and others
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
