( 1 ) THE matter in controversy dealing with the issue of the notice under section 126 of the DMC Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) dealing with the same society in question now stands fully settled by the judgment in CR 1237/1997 MCD v. R. K. Jain decided on 22. 7. 2002 and CWP No. 5872/99 decided on 13. 8. 2002, Thus the same directions are liable to be issued in the present petition.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, however, disputes the aforesaid position on the basis that the judgment in CR 1237/1997 was per incuriam being in conflict with certain statutory provisions as also contrary to an earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge of this court in Justice K. S. Gupta v. MCD, 83 (2000) dlt 644 : 2000 (52) DRJ 783. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak and another, 1988 (2) SCC 602 and Punjab Land Development and Reclamation corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and others, 1990 (3) SCC 682. The Supreme Court considered the expression per incuriam which is a latin expression meaning through inadvertence. The Supreme Court held