Final Order 2

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Review.petn.8.20
IN THE COURT BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GR.BOMBAY
Review Petition No.08 of 2020
In
Execution Application N.82 of 2019
In
Short Cause Suit No.1540 of 2015
Smt.Premlata Stanley Palanna ..Petitioner/org.plaintiff
V/s.
Mrs.Vasudha Daji Shetge ..Respondent/org.defendant
Coram : H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
M.W. CHANDWANI
Dated : 20th January,2020
(C.R.No.19)
Advocate Mr.Dhiraj Chavan a/w. advocate Mr.Sanjay Rego i/b. Deven
Dwarkadas & Partners for petitioner/original plaintiff.
Advocate Mr.Viraj Kandpile for respondent/original defendant.
O R A L O R D E R
By the present Review Petition, the petitioner is seeking review of
the order dated 10th October,2019 in Chamber Summons No.1507/2019.
2 Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and respondent.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Review.petn.8.20
3 Suffice to say that the petitioner agreed to purchase the property
from his landlord/respondent in the year 2013. However, the agreement could
not be materialized. The petitioner filed suit against the respondent, which
culminated in the consent terms, wherein the petitioner agreed to purchase the
property for sum of Rs.63 lakhs. Rs.1.5 lakhs were given to the respondent and
Rs.61.50 lakhs remained to be paid. As the petitioner could not comply with
consent terms therefore, the respondent filed Execution Application. In
Execution Application, the petitioner filed Chamber Summons for stay of the
Execution proceeding mentioning that though he could not pay consideration
amount as agreed, but he is paying interest as mentioned in the consent terms.
The said application came to be rejected by order dated 10th October,2019.
4 By the present application, the review of the said order has been
sought on the grounds, that . he has already paid Rs.1 lakh by NEFT and later
on, two cheques of Rs.30 lakhs and Rs.31.50 lakhs were made, which are
dishonoured. It is contended that petitioner had paid regularly the interest
amount of Rs.25,000/- per month until November,2018. Therefore, the order
rejecting the Chamber summons be reviewed and be set aside.
5 It will be opposite to mention here the provisions with regard to
review petition Order-XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the review
applications, which is referred as under:
“Order-XLVII-Application for review of judgment-
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Review.petn.8.20
allowed, but from which no appeal has been
preferred.
(b) by a decree of order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not
be produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desire to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review
of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made
the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may
apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of
an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such
appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when,
being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case
on which he applies for the review.”
6 Thus, application for review is only maintainable in any of the
above mentioned circumstances. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the application is filed under clause (c) of Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure i.e. on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record.
But the learned advocate for petitioner failed to show any mistake or order
apparent on the record, which resulted in rejection of such Chamber Summons.
Rather, the Review Application is made on the very same grounds which were
considered in the Chamber Summons i.e. since as per consent terms, the
applicant is paying the interest in default, hence the execution cannot be
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Review.petn.8.20
proceeded and be stayed. Thus, my predecessor has already considered the
said ground and rejected the application on merit. The Review application is
not maintainable on the same ground.
5 Since, no case is made out as enumerated under Order-XLVII of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the Review Application is not maintainable.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
O R D E R
The Review Application no.08/2020 stands rejected with costs.
20/01/2020 (M.W. CHANDWANI)
Principal Judge,
Gr.Bombay.
Dictated on : 20/01/2020
Transcribed on : 21/01/2020
Signed by H.H.J. on : 07/02/2020
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Review.petn.8.20
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Name of Stenographer: Mr. Tushar P. Kuwar
Upload date and time: 07.02.2020 (3.45 p.m.)
Name of the Judge H.H.THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE
Shri M.W. CHANDWANI(C.R.No.19)
Date of Pronouncement of Order 20.01.2020
Order signed by P.O. on 07.02.2020
Order uploaded on 07.02.2020
-- 5 of 5 --