Title: MONIKA GUPTA Versus SANJAY BANSAL
Date of Decision: 19.07.2023
+ RFA(OS) 59/2019 & CM APPL. 19452/2022
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
Introduction
Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition on as the petitioner was lackadaisical in filing the review and there is no ground of reason to back this Inordinate delay of more than 1600 days.
Facts of the case
The appellant filed the current application in an effort to excuse the existing appeal’s 1969-day filing delay. The petitioner has chosen the current internal court appeal in opposition to a decision made on August 27, 2014, known as “the impugned order,” the respondent’s claim for particular judgement was heard by the learned Single Judge, wherein It was mandated to perform. According to the contested order, the parties had signed a contract to sell a piece of land known as Plot. Number 68, 50.40 square metres, Pocket 11, Block G, Sector 11, ‘The suit property’ in Rohini, New Delhi-110085, is up for sale Consideration in the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs.
The plaintiff said that on May 7, 2012—the day the Agreement to Sell was signed—it had paid the appellant/defendant a payment totaling Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). At the time of the Sale Deed’s execution, the remaining amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) was due to be paid on or by May 15, 2012. The learned Single Judge observed that the defendant/appellant had not filed a written statement and that it was not on record despite having had enough opportunity to do so. Additionally, the appellant did not show up in front of the relevant court on the dates when the case was heard.
As a result, the respondent/plaintiff’s request for particular execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 07.05.2012 was granted by the learned Single Judge, who also decreed the suit.
Analysis of the court
The appellant claims that the respondent failed to file the reply despite being given enough opportunity to do so, which contributed significantly to the delay in the processes surrounding the review petition.
The appellant supported his claim by citing the ruling in the case of DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2012) 6 SCC 782, which held that the time spent by the party pursuing the review petition must not be taken into account when considering whether to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. He called this Court’s attention to paragraph 25.3 of the aforementioned ruling.
The appellant receives no benefit from the aforementioned ruling. Contrarily, the Court has mandated that the time spent by the party actively pursuing the remedy of review be excluded in suitable situations. In this instance, we determine that the appellant pursued its review petition in a careless manner, and we are unable to believe that the appellant did so conscientiously.
It is obvious that the current appeal has been filed with excessive delay, and court finds no reason to excuse this.
As a result, the appeal is denied.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By Shreyanshu Gupta
