The Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs One lakh on a litigant for filing a frivolous review petition..Coming down heavily on the litigant, the Court remarked,.“Before I conclude, I must express my anguish about how judicial time is being wasted in deciding such frivolous review petitions, wherein review of consent orders is sought, that too either when the author of the judgment stands retired or is unfortunately since deceased, as in the present case. In my view, the present review petition is merely a dishonest attempt on the part of the tenant to somehow continue residing in the tenanted property by trying to wriggle out of consent orders. Such tendency of dishonest litigants need to be nipped in the bud and dealt with a heavy hand and, therefore, it is a fit case where the review petition needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs.”.The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Palli..The tenant/appellant, Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd had moved the High Court in an appeal seeking the reduction in mesne profits while the landlord/respondent, Beant Singh had preferred a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the mesne profits..Both the appeals were disposed of with a common consent order passed by Late Justice Valmiki Mehta..As per the order, the appellant had to hand over to the landlord actual vacant possession of the 5472 sq ft property in question. It was further directed that the appellant would pay to the landlord mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per month w.e.f. October 1, 2008. The Court had also granted an enhancement of 10% in the awarded mesne profits after every 12 months..In support of the review, the appellant argued that the consent order erroneously recorded that the mesne profits would be enhanced by 10% every 12 months when it should have been every alternate year..It was also contended that the order erroneously recorded that the tenant would hand over actual vacant possession of the property comprising of 5472 sq. ft. even though the documents on record including the lease deed clearly showed that the appellant had taken only an area of 2200 sq. ft. on lease..The appellant also submitted that the Court overlooked the fact that the tenant had already handed over possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent in July 2015 itself..Lastly, it was stated that the order also overlooked the fact that one Ajay Gosain, who was now in possession of the property claimed to have entered into an Agreement to Sell with the respondent and, therefore, the appellant no longer had any connection with the suit premises..The respondent vehemently opposed the review petition and submitted that the order passed by this Court showed that the parties were ad idem that the possession of an area of 5472 sq. ft. was to be handed over to the respondent by the appellant..The Court was informed that the appellant had challenged the order before the Supreme Court by way of an SLP and had raised the very same grounds. The appellant’s SLP was dismissed in limine and later even the appellant’s review petition was also rejected..Finally, It was also submitted that Ajay Gosain was hand in glove with the appellant. It was also stressed upon that the fact that Gosain’s wife and his brother were the directors of the appellant was concealed from the Court..After hearing the parties, the Court opined that the review petition was not only wholly misconceived but was an attempt to overreach the Court..The Court stated that the power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had a limited scope and could only to be exercised in case of an error apparent on the face of the record..“It is settled law that an error which is not self-evident but has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the exercise of the power of review.”, it was added..Given the facts of the case, the Court remarked that none of the grounds raised by the appellant fell within the ambit of the scope of a review and on this ground alone the review petition was liable to be dismissed..The Court also expressed its anguish over the appellant’s conduct and observed that dishonest litigant needed to be nipped in the bud and dealt with a heavy hand..It thus imposed cost of Rs 1 lakh on the appellant while dismissing the review for being wholly meritless..As per the order, cost of Rs.1 lakh will be paid to the respondent/landlord by the appellant..The respondent was represented by Advocates Harpreet Singh Uppal, Mohit Dewan & Yash Prakash Sharan..The appellants were represented by Advocates Rajesh Banati, Vikram Pratap..Read the Order:
The Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs One lakh on a litigant for filing a frivolous review petition..Coming down heavily on the litigant, the Court remarked,.“Before I conclude, I must express my anguish about how judicial time is being wasted in deciding such frivolous review petitions, wherein review of consent orders is sought, that too either when the author of the judgment stands retired or is unfortunately since deceased, as in the present case. In my view, the present review petition is merely a dishonest attempt on the part of the tenant to somehow continue residing in the tenanted property by trying to wriggle out of consent orders. Such tendency of dishonest litigants need to be nipped in the bud and dealt with a heavy hand and, therefore, it is a fit case where the review petition needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs.”.The order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Palli..The tenant/appellant, Compack Enterprises India (P) Ltd had moved the High Court in an appeal seeking the reduction in mesne profits while the landlord/respondent, Beant Singh had preferred a cross-appeal seeking enhancement of the mesne profits..Both the appeals were disposed of with a common consent order passed by Late Justice Valmiki Mehta..As per the order, the appellant had to hand over to the landlord actual vacant possession of the 5472 sq ft property in question. It was further directed that the appellant would pay to the landlord mesne profits at the rate of Rs.1 lakh per month w.e.f. October 1, 2008. The Court had also granted an enhancement of 10% in the awarded mesne profits after every 12 months..In support of the review, the appellant argued that the consent order erroneously recorded that the mesne profits would be enhanced by 10% every 12 months when it should have been every alternate year..It was also contended that the order erroneously recorded that the tenant would hand over actual vacant possession of the property comprising of 5472 sq. ft. even though the documents on record including the lease deed clearly showed that the appellant had taken only an area of 2200 sq. ft. on lease..The appellant also submitted that the Court overlooked the fact that the tenant had already handed over possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent in July 2015 itself..Lastly, it was stated that the order also overlooked the fact that one Ajay Gosain, who was now in possession of the property claimed to have entered into an Agreement to Sell with the respondent and, therefore, the appellant no longer had any connection with the suit premises..The respondent vehemently opposed the review petition and submitted that the order passed by this Court showed that the parties were ad idem that the possession of an area of 5472 sq. ft. was to be handed over to the respondent by the appellant..The Court was informed that the appellant had challenged the order before the Supreme Court by way of an SLP and had raised the very same grounds. The appellant’s SLP was dismissed in limine and later even the appellant’s review petition was also rejected..Finally, It was also submitted that Ajay Gosain was hand in glove with the appellant. It was also stressed upon that the fact that Gosain’s wife and his brother were the directors of the appellant was concealed from the Court..After hearing the parties, the Court opined that the review petition was not only wholly misconceived but was an attempt to overreach the Court..The Court stated that the power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had a limited scope and could only to be exercised in case of an error apparent on the face of the record..“It is settled law that an error which is not self-evident but has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the exercise of the power of review.”, it was added..Given the facts of the case, the Court remarked that none of the grounds raised by the appellant fell within the ambit of the scope of a review and on this ground alone the review petition was liable to be dismissed..The Court also expressed its anguish over the appellant’s conduct and observed that dishonest litigant needed to be nipped in the bud and dealt with a heavy hand..It thus imposed cost of Rs 1 lakh on the appellant while dismissing the review for being wholly meritless..As per the order, cost of Rs.1 lakh will be paid to the respondent/landlord by the appellant..The respondent was represented by Advocates Harpreet Singh Uppal, Mohit Dewan & Yash Prakash Sharan..The appellants were represented by Advocates Rajesh Banati, Vikram Pratap..Read the Order:
