* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: October 25, 2010
Date of Order: October 29, 2010
+ Review Petition No. 185/2010 in CM(M) No. 200/2010
% 29.10.2010
Anita Aggarwal ... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate &
Mr. Harsh Dev Shastri, Advocate
Versus
Kharanand & Ors. ... Respondents
Through: Mr. D.S.Mahenderu, Advocate for R-2&3
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
ORDER
By this review application the applicant has sought review of the
order dated 6th April, 2010 of this Court on the ground that during course of
hearing this Court was of the view that issue of limitation involves a mix
question of law and facts and the same could be kept open, to be decided by
the trial Court along with other issues after recording evidence of the parties
and in view of this expression of opinion by this Court, the Counsel for the
petitioner did not address arguments on the facts and merits of the case
However, vide order dated 6th April, 2010 the petition was dismissed on merits
and the order of the trial Court was upheld. It is therefore prayed that the
order be reviewed.
RP No. 185/2010 in CMM No. 200/2010 Page 1 of 2
2. This petition was listed for the first time before the Court on 15th
February, 2010 and the Court asked the Counsel to argue on the
maintainability of the petition. By this petition, the petitioner had assailed an
order of the trial Court deciding a preliminary issue “whether the present suit
was barred by limitation – OPD?” and the trial Court after considering the
facts and arguments of both the sides had come to the conclusion that the suit
was within the period of limitation. This Court had considered the arguments
addressed by the petitioner and passed order as per law.
3. It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that this Court
should recall the order and the issue of limitation be sent back to the trial
Court for deciding afresh after recording evidence. I consider that in the garb
of reviewing, the Court cannot recall its order and pass another order quite
differently and contrary to the order, in question. None of the grounds as
given in Order 47 CPC has been made out in the review application. I find no
reason to review the order. The review application is dismissed.
October 29, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
RP No. 185/2010 in CMM No. 200/2010 Page 2 of 2