Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Misc. DJ 778/2025
Page no. 1 of 6
Kanwar Jeet Singh vs. Satnam Singh & Ors.
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
District Judge – 07, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi
Misc. DJ 778/2025
CNR No. DLCT01-010291-2025
In the matter of:
Kanwar Jeet Singh
(Since deceased through LRs)
............. Plaintiff
versus
Satnam Singh & Ors.
…...….. Defendants
08.12.2025
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall decide two applications filed by
applicant/defendants seeking review of the order dated 08.09.2025 and
condonation of delay in e-filing the review application. I have heard
argument on the said applications from Ld. Counsel for the parties.
2. In the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the
review application, it is stated that there is a delay of two days because
Ld. Counsel for applicant earlier filed a review application in the main
suit through e-filing no. ADL20230002254D202500270, which was
rejected/disapproved on the e-portal, and upon making enquiry, it was
conveyed that the review application had to be filed separately under the
-- 1 of 6 --
Misc. DJ 778/2025
Page no. 2 of 6
Kanwar Jeet Singh vs. Satnam Singh & Ors.
head of “Miscellaneous District Judge” category. On compliance of the
same, applicant filed the fresh application, which was placed before this
court. The abovesaid process took two days, which was neither
intentional nor deliberate but due to the above circumstances.
3. Reply to the application seeking condonation of delay filed
wherein it is stated that the said application is not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed on the ground that applicant/defendant no. 2 has
not shown any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The applicant
admits the two-days delay but failed to provide any supporting material,
documents, screenshots, email, system logs, or any acknowledgment of
the alleged earlier e-filing ADL20230002254D202500270. The grounds
taken in the said application are vague, self-serving and unsupported,
which cannot justify condonation.
4. The delay in filing the application seeking review
application is only of two days and the reasons shown are also found
satisfactory. Moreover, it is also a settled position of law that a liberal
approach is required to be adopted for condoning the delay in filing
application as the lis ought to be decided on merit rather than on
technicalities. The substantial right of the parties should not be defeated
only on account of some procedural lapse.
5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the application
-- 2 of 6 --
Misc. DJ 778/2025
Page no. 3 of 6
Kanwar Jeet Singh vs. Satnam Singh & Ors.
seeking condonation of delay in filing review application is allowed and
the delay is condoned.
6. In the application seeking review of the order dated
08.09.2025, it is prayed to waive off the cost of Rs.50,000, which was
imposed upon the defendant no. 2. It is stated that the case was pending
since 2011 and this court ultimately allowed the application under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant No. 2 and returned the plaint for want
of jurisdiction. It is further stated that by filing the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, defendant no. 2 actually saved the precious time
of this court, as the matter could have been continued despite having
inherent lack of jurisdiction but on the contrary, cost was imposed upon
defendant no. 2 instead of plaintiff for filing a suit in a court without
jurisdiction. It is further stated that on perusal of para no. 24 of the
plaint, it can be seen that instead of filing the suit on the basis of claim of
immovable property, plaintiff availed the jurisdiction of this court on the
basis of residence of parties. Therefore, cost should have been imposed
upon the plaintiff instead of applicant/defendant no. 2.
7. Reply to the review application was filed wherein it is stated
that after this court passed the order dated 08.09.2025 under Order 7
Rule 10 CPC, the plaintiff re-filed the suit before Ld. Principal District
& Sessions Judge, West District and the suit has been listed before the
court of Sh. Anil Chandhel, Ld. District Judge, West District, Delhi for
-- 3 of 6 --
Misc. DJ 778/2025
Page no. 4 of 6
Kanwar Jeet Singh vs. Satnam Singh & Ors.
appearance of defendants, leaving no surviving cause for review of the
impugned order. It is further stated that the plaintiff strongly opposes the
present review application of defendant no. 2 and the cost of Rs.50,000
was rightly/correctly imposed because defendant no. 2 never raised any
jurisdictional objection in the written statement or at the time of framing
of issues.
8. While considering the present review application, this court
has to keep in mind the principles governing the exercise of power of
review as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of “
Haridas vs. Usha Rani Banik AIR 2006 SC 1634” as under:
“
The Sec.114 CPC does not adumbrate the ambit of
interference expected of the court since it merely states that
it “may make such order as it thinks fit.” The parameters for
judicial review are prescribed in Order 47 CPC as under:
(i) From the discovery of new and important matters or
evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the applicant:
(ii) Such important matter or evidence could not be
produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was
passed or order made: and
(iii) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of record or any other sufficient reasons.”
9. In the instant case, the applicant did not claim the review on
the first two grounds i.e. (i) discovery of new facts and (ii) non
-- 4 of 6 --
Misc. DJ 778/2025
Page no. 5 of 6
Kanwar Jeet Singh vs. Satnam Singh & Ors.
production of evidence. On the point of last ground i.e. (iii) “mistake or
error apparent on the face of record”, in the case of Thungabhadra
Industries Ltd., M/s. v. Govt. of A.P." AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India further illustrated the said preposition as under:
“
There is a distinction which is real, though it might not
always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous
decision and a decision which could be characterised as
vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Where without
any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say
here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the
face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions
entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the
face of the record would be made out.”
10. In view of the aforesaid position of law, this court is of the
considered opinion that there is no error on the face of the record/order
which warrants recall or review of the impugned order because while
deciding the application seeking rejection of the plaint, this court
imposed the cost after analyzing the amount of fees paid to Ld. Local
Commissioner who recorded the PE; the substantial delay caused to the
case of plaintiff by pursuing the case by defendant and the fact that
defendant did not raise any issue of territorial jurisdiction at the initial
stage of the case which resulted into progressing the case to the extent of
completion of plaintiff’s evidence.
-- 5 of 6 --
Misc. DJ 778/2025
Page no. 6 of 6
Kanwar Jeet Singh vs. Satnam Singh & Ors.
11. Moreover, if the defendant did not raise the said issue of
territorial jurisdiction by filing application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC,
the case could have progressed further and a judgment could have been
passed after holding a trial and in that eventuality, the said judgment
could not be challenged for want of territorial jurisdiction being barred
by Section 21 of the CPC. Ld. Counsel for the applicant argued that a
legal objection can be raised even at the appellate stage but this court
does not agree with the said submission because a legal objection can be
allowed, if it is not specifically barred and in the present case, the
Section 21 CPC would have applied on the issue of jurisdiction. In the
light of the aforesaid fact, the review application is dismissed. File be
consigned to record room.
Announced & dictated in
the open court on 08.12.2025
(Naresh Kumar Laka)
District Judge-07
Central District/Tis Hazari.
-- 6 of 6 --