IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.M.No.7186-C of 2008 and
R.A.No.40-C of 2008 in
R.S.A. No. 1022 of 2004
Date of Order: 11.2.2009
Bhim Singh
Versus
Laxman @ Lachman & others.
....
Present: Shri Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate for the applicant.
….
The applicant has filed the instant application under Order 47
Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the C.P.C. for review of judgment dated
7.8.2006 vide which R.S.A.No.1022 of 2004 was dismissed. Since it is
barred by limitation, C.M.No.7186-C of 2008 has been moved for
condonation of 554 days’ delay.
In support of the plea for condonation of delay, learned counsel
for the applicant has contended that the applicant had approached the Apex
Court assailing the judgment under review, but the Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal was withdrawn with liberty to file a review application
and, therefore, the delay has occurred.
That apart, on merits, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that order dated 7.8.2006 deserves to be reviewed and that the
possession of the applicant is borne out from the documents which are now
sought to be produced by way of additional evidence and are attached along
with the review application as Mark-A1, A2 and A3.
C.M.No.7186-C of 2008 and
R.A.No.40-C of 2008 in
R.S.A. No. 1022 of 2004
-2-
After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the
opinion that the review application is barred by an inordinate delay of 554
days. The explanation that the Apex Court had been approached against the
judgment sought to be reviewed, by way of Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal, which has ultimately been got dismissed as withdrawn with
permission to file review application cannot be considered to be sufficient
ground for condonation of delay. Even the order of the Apex Court is of the
year 2007, i.e., 19.1.2007 and the review application has been filed on
24.3.2008, for which period there is no explanation forthcoming.
The review application is, therefore, hopelessly barred by
limitation.
Even otherwise, the reliance has been placed on some report/
orders of the revenue authorities, which are marked as A1 to A3 and are of
the year 2004 and 2006 and thus, the same came into existence much after
the decision of the appeal by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul on
30.9.2003. The appeal was filed in 2004 and was disposed of on 7.8.2006.
No attempt was made to produce before this Court the documents which
came into existence in 2004 and even the document marked as A3 was
passed after the decision of the appeal. The applicant cannot derive any
benefit of such report/ orders which were not in existence at the time when
the controversy had been determined by the First Appellate Court and then
never produced before this Court also.
There is no reason to enter upon these proceedings.
Consequently, the review application as well as the application
C.M.No.7186-C of 2008 and
R.A.No.40-C of 2008 in
R.S.A. No. 1022 of 2004
-3-
for condonation of delay are dismissed.
February 11,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge