Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1041
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Indermeet Kaur, J.
Delhi Development Authority - Petitioner
Versus
Vasant Surgico Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors - Respondent
C.R.P. 43 of 2014.
Decided on : 25-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Shobhana Takiar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ravinder Sethi with Naresh Thanai Puneet Sharma, Advocates.
The importance of timely legal remedies and public interest in fixing time limits for litigation, and the inability to challenge a consent order inter se the parties after the fact.
Headnote:
DDA - Suit for declaration, permanent injunction - Limitation Act - Order 47 - Section 5 - Delhi High Court judgment - DDA v. Aditya Kumar Jajodia, 2005 IV (Delhi) 329 - J.K.Bhartiya & Ors. v. UOI & Anr.,2006 I AD (Delhi) 408 - Section 5 of the Limitation Act
Fact of the Case:
The DDA filed a review petition seeking to review an earlier order, but the court dismissed the application due to unexplained delay. The DDA then filed a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) after a significant delay, which was later converted into a revision petition. The court found the petition to be hopelessly barred by time and lacking in merit, as it was a consent order inter se the parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review petition was rightly dismissed due to inordinate delay and lack of grounds for review. It also noted that the matter had come to a close and could not be agitated again.
Issues: Unexplained delay in filing review petition, conversion of RSA into a revision petition, lack of merit in the petition
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely legal remedies and public interest in fixing time limits for litigation. It also highlighted that a consent order inter se the parties cannot be assailed by one of the parties after the fact.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be hopelessly barred by time and lacking in merit, and was dismissed by the court.
Indermeet Kaur, J.
Petitioner/DDA is aggrieved by the order dated 27.4.2010 wherein the Trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner (under Order 47 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act) seeking a review of the earlier order dated 17.10.2008.
2. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for declaration, permanent injunction which has been filed by the plaintiff namely M/s Vasant Surgico Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. against the DDA. Prayer was that a decree of permanent injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and a decree of declaration was also sought declaring the lease deed 15.01.1986 to be ultra vires and the same be treated as cancelled. The Trial Court had decreed the suit. Before the Appellate Court parties were negotiating. This is clear from the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by ARC in RCA No.19/2007. Extract of the order is reproduced herein as under:
"Matter has been fixed for conciliation. The officers of the appellant and the Director for the respondent company are present in the Court. They have made their respective statements. In view of the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of DDA v. Aditya Kumar Jajodia, 2005 IV (Delhi) 329 and J.K.Bhartiya & Ors. v. UOI & Anr.,2006 I AD (Delhi) 408 the respondent has agreed to pay the Ground Rent, Restoration Charges, Conversion Charges (without interest) in terms of the above said rulings and Circular dated 23.6.1995 to which the appellant has no objection. The officer of the appellant and the Director of the respondent company are present in the Court and they agreed that after making adjustments of the amount already deposited by the respondent only a sum of Rs.23,91,238/- which is inclusive of the interest @ 10% per annum from the date of application is required to be paid which the respondent is agreed to pay on or before 31.10.2008. I am satisfied by the statements of the parties and counsels by which they are bound.
In terms of the aforesaid the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 26.4.2007 holding clause (aa) of lease deed to be null and void is hereby set aside. Appeal stands disposed off. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal file be consigned to record room."
Statement of Jaswant Singh, Senior Account Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan was recorded on the same date; which reads hereinafter as under:
"Statement of Sh.Jaswant Singh, Senior Accounts Officer, DDA, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A., New Delhi.
On S.A.
I am the Sr. Account Officer of DDA duly competent to make a statement on their behalf. The respondent (Plaintiff) is required to make a payment of Rs.23,91,238/- as Restoration charges, ground rent and conversion charges which has been worked out as under.
(i) Restoration charges : Rs.1,31,103.00
(ii) Ground Rent w.e.f. 21.6.1977 to 14.12.2008 after adjustment of Rs.1,51,300/- and interest of Rs.38,156/- (subject to verification ) comes to Rs.1,20,150/- and interest up to 14.1.2009 comes to Rs.3,79,294/-.
(iii) Conversion Charges applicable on the date of application i.e. February 2004 comes to Rs.23,95,490.00 after deducting amount of Rs.11,98,419/-. A sum of Rs.11,97,071/- is payable by the respondent.
(iv) Interest @10% as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court for the period February 2004 when the application was made till 31.10.2008 comes to Rs.5,63,620/-.
(v) The total figure is Rs.23,91,238/-."
3. The sum of Rs.23,91,238/- calculated by the DDA was accordingly paid by the plaintiff to the DDA. The Department was, however, not happy with the order. They preferred to file a review petition. This review petition was filed on 28.10.2009. This was accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay. Contention in this review petition was that the earlier order dated 17.10.2008 is liable to be reviewed for the reason that the official who had made this s
