JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. This review petition has been filed under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 on behalf of Mr. S.N. Shukla inter alia, praying for review against the order passed by this Court on 8.8.2000 passed in W.P. (C) no.4854/1994. Mr. Phoolka, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant, has contended that the correct facts were not placed by the petitioner before the court and, therefore, the court can review its order on appreciation of the correct facts. It was contended by Mr. Phoolka that the impugned order was obtained on account of collusion between the petitioner and the respondent society. He has also contended that at the time of becoming member of the Society, petitioner withheld relevant information and affidavit was filed by the petitioner that he does not own any other property. Mr.Phoolka has contended that the applicant is aggrieved by the judgment as he was enrolled as a member pursuant to the petitioner being held disqualified as per Rule 25 of the Co-operative Societies Rules by the Registrar Cooperative Societies on 9.12.91 and therefore the impugned order has resulted in miscarriage of justice qua the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon Shivdeo Singh and Ors. V. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1909. On the basis of the aforesaid authority Mr. Phoolka has contended that this Court has inherent power to prevent miscarriage of justice and the impugned order may be reviewed. He has also placed reliance upon Ram Janam Singh V. State of U.P. and Anrs. and has contended that if there is any collusion between the parties, Court can exercise its power to grant appropriate relief to prevent miscarriage of justice. Reliance has also been place by Mr. Phoolka on Ram Chandra Singh V. Savitri Devi and Ors. .
2. I have also heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Society as well as counsel for the petitioner. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that to prevent miscarriage of justice, Court is not without power to prevent such miscarriage of justice. Although it was canvassed before me by counsel for the petitioner that review application is not maintainable and in this regard Mr. Gupta counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench in Ram Krishan Bhalla V. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 87 (2000) DLT 622. The Division Bench of this Court relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh V. Bhram Datt Sharma and Another . Para 37 of the said judgment is reproduced below:
“An objection was raised on behalf of the Society of not entertaining various miscellaneous applications after the writ petition had been disposed of. There is no doubt that after a writ petition is disposed of finally, nothing survives for consideration and no miscellaneous application can be entertained to revive the proceedings. Even on subsequent events, a Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain the applications as no proceedings can be said to be pending in High Court. Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh V. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, held:
“The High Court’s order is not sustainable for yet another reason. Respondent’s writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on 10.8.1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent was aggrieved by the notice dated 29.1.86 he could have filed a separate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent’s application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning.”
3. Assuming that Court has no power of review, still I would like to address the arguments advanced by Mr. Phoolka counsel for the applicant on merit. The order dated 9.12.91 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, inter alia, disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that Nazul Land Rules do not automatically apply to the cooperative laws and as such even if Baij Nath Singh, Shyam Lal Sharma and petitioner Ram Nath Sharma owned any ancestral property in Nangal Raya village they would incur disqualification in terms of Rule 25 of the Cooperative Societies Rule. That order of Registrar Cooperative Societies was challenged by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner upheld the order of the Registrar Co-operative Societies vide order dated 2.8.94. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in this Court which was listed for the first time on 2.12.94. In view of the judgment of this Court in Navjivan Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. V. Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, Delhi and Ors. W.P.(C) 3150/85 decided on 10.7.87, where a similar question arose with regard to the interpretation of Rule 25 of Cooperative Societies Rule against which no appeal was filed and that decision attained finality. This Court relying upon the said judgment held that the petitioner’s case was similar to the view taken in the Navjivan Cooperative House Building Society (supra) and therefore, the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner and the Registrar Cooperative Societies were not correct as it was before the Registrar Cooperative Societies that ancestral property of the petitioner along with his two brothers only measured 100 sq. yards whereas Rule 25 postulates that if holding of a person is more than 80 sq. yards in ancestral property then in that case alone he would be disqualified in terms of the said rule. Now coming to the present applicant although no actual date of enrollment is before me, however, it is contended by counsel for the applicant as well as Society that applicant was enrolled in the year 1993. If he was enrolled in the year 1993 he knew about the pendency before the Financial Commissioner as well as in this Court. Having kept quiet from 1993 till the year 200 after the order is passed by this Court the applicant himself chosen to avoid the proceedings without moving an application for impleadment in the writ petition, cannot now be permitted under the garb of review petition to challenge the order which he could have done so earlier. Writ petition was disposed of by order dated 8.8.2000. The petitioner has already been allotted flat in the Cooperative Society after the decision in the writ petition and during pendency of the review application. The clock cannot be brought back. Judging from any angle there is no merit in the review application. Dismissed.