HIMA KOHLI, J

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate by profession and appears in person, praying inter alia for quashing of the conversion/conveyance deed dated 23.07.1993 and for restoration of the sublease deed of Plot No. C-50, Niti Bagh, New Delhi in her favour. In the alternate, the petitioner has sought cancellation of the conversion made by respondent/DDA in favour of respondent No.4.

2. When the present petition was listed for admission on 23.09.2011, the following order had been passed:-

“1. The petition impugns the Conveyance Deed dated 23.07.1993 of freehold rights in land underneath property No.C-50, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi executed by the respondent No.1 DDA in favour of the respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the sub-lessee of the said plot of land. The petitioner claims to have entered into certain Agreement, Power of Attorney and Will etc. with the respondent No.3 Mr. Davis John and on the basis of which the said respondent No.3 Mr. Davis John is stated to have fraudulently and contrary to the Agreement got the Conveyance Deed aforesaid in favour of his wife respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis aforesaid. 3. Though it appears that disputed questions of fact arise and the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondents No.3 and 4 but it is found that the respondent No.1 DDA had issued a notice to show cause to the said respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis, as to why the Conveyance Deed should not be cancelled. It further appears that no decision in pursuance to the said show cause notice has been taken till now. The counsel for the respondent No.1 DDA appearing on advance notice states that probably no decision has been taken till now in pursuance to the show cause. 4. Since notice to show cause has already been issued to the respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis, need is not felt to hear the respondent No.4 Ms. Chinky Davis before directing the respondent No.1 DDA to take a decision in pursuance to the show cause notice issued, but after hearing both petitioner as well as the respondents No.3and4. The needful be done before the next date of hearing and the decision be communicated and placed before this Court. List on 15th December, 2011.”

3. On 15.12.2011, counsel for respondent No.1/DDA had stated that though the petitioner and respondents No.3 and 4 were called upon to appear before Director (R.L.), DDA on 22.11.2011, none had appeared on the said date. She stated that when the matter was placed before the Vice Chairman, DDA for taking a decision, it transpired that the petitioner had appeared before the Vice Chairman, DDA instead of appearing before the aforesaid officer. She further stated that the Director (R.L.), DDA had been directed to issue a fresh notice to show cause to the petitioner and the respondents No.3 and 4 to appear on 05.12.2011, on which date, the parties had duly appeared.

4. On his part, counsel for respondent No.4 had stated on 15.12.2011 that respondent No.3 had expired and, therefore, his name was sought to be deleted from the array of respondents. At that stage, the petitioner had submitted that a copy of the decision taken by respondent No.1/DDA had not been received by her. Resultantly, respondent No.1/DDA was directed to communicate its decision to the petitioner and respondent No.3 with a copy placed on record before the next date of hearing.

5. In the meantime, respondent No.4 filed a review application registered as Review Application No.786/2011 wherein review of order dated 23.09.2011 was prayed for on the ground that the petitioner had sought to subvert the process of law and had tried to mislead the Court while filing the present petition. The conduct of the petitioner was highlighted in detail in para-4 of the application wherein, it was stated that in the year 1986, the petitioner had sold the subject premises to respondent No.4 by executing a set of documents including agreement to sell, reg