Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 22
MISC SCJ 50/25 SHANTI DEVI VS. JITENDER SINGH
13.01.2026
At 12:00noon
Present: Sh. Piyush Pahuja and Sh. Upender Kumar, Ld.
Counsels for applicant.
Sh. B.L. Mehta, Ld. Counsel for non applicant No.1
and 2.
Sh. Shagun Mehta, Ld. Counsel for non applicant
No.3 & 4.
Today reply has been filed on behalf of non
applicant No.1 and 2 to the application for modification of Order
dated 21.01.2025 filed by the applicant. Copy of the same has
already been supplied to the applicant.
Arguments have been heard.
Put up for Orders at 4:00pm.
(HALA QUAMAR)
Civil Judge-1 (Central)
THC, Delhi/13.01.2026
At 4:00pm
Present: None.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application moved on
behalf of the applicant under Section 151 CPC seeking
modification of the order dated 21.01.2025, whereby the
application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was dismissed on account
of non-payment of costs.
2. It is noted from the record that vide order dated 22.01.2024,
the learned predecessor of this Court had allowed two separate
applications for restoration of the suit—one filed by the LRs of LR
No. (iii) of the deceased plaintiff and the other filed by LR No. (iv)
of the deceased plaintiff—subject to payment of costs of 5,000/-	₹
Page No.1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
each and further subject to payment of the previous cost of
10,000/- imposed upon the LRs of LR No. (iii) of the plaintiff.	₹
Since the cumulative cost of 20,000/- was a condition precedent	₹
for restoration of the suit and the same was not paid, the application
under Order IX Rule 7 CPC moved by the applicant came to be
dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2025.
The applicant, who is LR No. (iv) of the deceased plaintiff, has now
moved the present application seeking modification of the said
order on the ground that he was misled by his previous counsel,
who failed to inform him that non-payment of the cumulative cost
would adversely affect even his rights. It is further submitted that
the applicant is now ready and willing to pay the entire cost as well
as any further cost, if imposed by the Court. It is also stated that the
applicant has already lodged a complaint against the previous
counsel before the Bar Council of Delhi.
3. The said application has been vehemently opposed by
learned counsel for the non-applicants. It is contended that the
rights and interests of the LRs of the plaintiff are common and,
therefore, the excuse put forth by the applicant is not tenable.
Learned counsel for the non-applicants has further drawn the
attention of the Court to the observations made by the learned
predecessor in the order dated 21.01.2025, wherein it was noted
that the present case was initially instituted in the year 2007 and
had already been dismissed in default on two occasions. It is further
argued that the present application has been moved after almost one
year from the passing of the impugned order, which clearly reflects
lack of due diligence on the part of the applicant.
Page No.2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
4. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the non-applicants that since
the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC has already been
dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2025, the applicant cannot again
approach this Court seeking restoration of the suit at the same stage.
Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that by way of
the present application, the applicant is seeking only modification
of the impugned order and not restoration afresh.
5. Arguments have been heard at length on behalf of both the
parties. The application as well as the record have been perused.
6. It is observed that although the applicant has not specifically
mentioned the provision under which the present application has
been filed, the prayer seeking modification of the order dated
21.01.2025, in essence, amounts to seeking review of the said order
under Order XLVII CPC.
7. It is a settled proposition that the grounds for filing the
review is limited. The review can only be filed on the following
grounds:-
1. Discovery of New and Important matter or evidence, which, after
the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking review or could not be produced by him at any time
when the decree was passed or order made,
2. Or, some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
3. Or, any other sufficient reason.
8. It is immaterial to point out that even the third ground of
“sufficient reason” should also be analogous to the other two
Page No.3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
grounds. In the case at hand, none of the aforementioned grounds of
review are made out.
9. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicant
seeking review of order dated 25.09.2025 stands dismissed.
Application disposed off, accordingly with the liberty to the
applicant to resort to other alternative recourse, if available.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
(HALA QUAMAR)
Civil Judge-1 (Central)
THC, Delhi/13.01.2026
Page No.4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --