Himachal Pradesh High Court
RP/97/2018 of TAWARU RAM Vs RATTAN VIR AND OTHERS on 31 December 2018
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1704 of 2018 in Review Petition No. 97 of 2018 Date of decision: 31.12.2018 Tawaru Ram … Applicant/Petitioner Versus Rattan Vir & Ors. … Non-Applicants/Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMP(M)No. 1704 of 2018 in Review Petition No. 97 of 2018
Date of decision: 31.12.2018
Tawaru Ram … Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Rattan Vir & Ors. … Non-Applicants/Respondents
Coram :
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral):
CMP(M) No. 1704 of 2018:
This application has been filed by the applicantpraying for condonation of 545 days delay in filing the reviewpetition against judgment and decree passed by this Court inRSA No. 269 of 2006 titled Rattan Vir Vs. Twaru, which wasdecided on 29.09.2016.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The explanation given as to why the review petition has been filed after such a long delay, is that theapplicant was not informed by the counsel who representedhim before this Court as to when the appeal stood decided.Thereafter, when he came to know about the adjudication inthe appeal, he was advised by the counsel at Rohru tocontest the execution petition. The averments made in theapplication also demonstrate that the applicant feelingaggrieved by the orders passed by the Executing Court hadearlier approached this Court under Article 227 of theConstitution of India and the petition filed by him waswithdrawn on 22.11.2018 and thereafter present applicationhas been filed.
3. Be that as it may, the averments made in theapplication do not give any cogent explanation as to whythe review petition petition has not been filed within thestatutory period, except the bald averments made thereinthat factum of the adjudication of the appeal was notinformed to the applicant by the counsel. There is no otherground mentioned. Even this alleged fact that the applicantwas not informed about the adjudication of the appeal byhis counsel, is not supported by any contemporaneousmaterial. On the other hand, one finds that the applicant was Be that as it may, the averments made in the defending himself in the execution petition and had evenapproached this Court as already mentioned above. Therefore,as the applicant has not been able to explain satisfactorily asto why the review petition could not be filed within thestatutory period, this application being devoid of any merit isdismissed.
Review Petition No. 97 of 2018:
4. In view of the dismissal of the application forcondonation of delay, this petition meets with the same fate,so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
December 31, 2018(BSS)
(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge