( 1 ) THIS application under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 has been moved on behalf of the respondents for review of the order dated 1. 8. 2005.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. S. P. Chug, Advocate learned counsel for the applicants/respondents/plaintiffs and Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner/defendant.

( 3 ) IT will be helpful to refer briefly to the facts of this case. The opposite party to this application had filed a petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India [c. M. (M)] against an order dated 19. 8. 2004 passed by the civil Judge, Delhi allowing an application for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 3 and 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned civil judge had set aside a consent order vide order dated 19. 8. 2004, which was challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said C. M. (M)was allowed by this court and the impugned order dated 19. 8. 2004 was set aside. It was directed by this court that the proceeding will commence from the stage where the same were before passing of the impugned order and the learned trial court judge was directed to make efforts to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months and nothing said in the order of this court was to be taken as expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has submitted that alongwith the c. M. (Main), C. M. No. 2094/2005 (an application under Section 151 CPC raising preliminary objections) was also heard but no order has been passed on the said application. On the other hand learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner has submitted that in fact both the learned counsel were heard extensively on merits after completion of the pleadings, for disposal of the petition and not for admission and the CM No. 2094/2005 actually did not survive and may be due to inadvertence it was not mentioned so while disposing of the petition.

( 5 ) I have again perused the order sheets from the time, when the writ petition first came up before this court on 22. 11. 2004 Only notice (not notice to show cause why petition be not admitted) was issued by my learned predecessor and office was directed to complete the pleadings and the trial court proceedings were stayed. I have no doubt in my mind that the petition was heard at length for disposal and not for admission. However the application under section 151 CPC was not specifically dealt with, which in the facts and circumstances of this case can be specifically dealt with even now.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has submitted that he had raised a preliminary objection in the CM No. 2094/2005 that the petitioner had the remedy of filing an appeal under Order XLIII sub rule (w) before the District Judge against the impugned order dated 19. 8. 2004, therefore C. M. (M) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable. Secondly, the petitioner had accepted the cost imposed upon the respondents by the trial court and having once accepted the cost of Rs. 1000/- she could not challenge the order. Learned counsel has submitted that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the order dated 1. 8. 2005 passed by this court be reviewed and the c. M. (M) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India be dismissed.

( 7 ) ON the other hand learned counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner-defendant has submitted that the application is an abuse of process of law. The applicants are in the habit of playing fraud and tampering with court records, the ex parte decree was obtained by them by playing fraud and that the order passed by the learned civil judge, which was impugned in the C. M. (M), was on an application for review of the consent order and along with the said application for review in the trial court, there was also an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document