The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited purpose of a review application and the narrow scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

CM. No.23662/2019 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

Review Petition No. 212/2019 in CONT. CAS(C) 454/2017

1. The present Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 03.05.2019, passed in Contempt Case No.454/2017.

2. Notice. Mr. Dhanesh Relan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/DDA accepts notice.

3. Review of the final order dated 03.05.2019, has been sought by the petitioner on the grounds that the impugned order has been passed due to some confusion or miscommunication; that there was no occasion for the court to deal with and decide the contempt petition as only the new/fresh application bearing no. CM No. 21078/2019 was listed on 03.05.2019 for consideration; that as per the order dated 25.04.2019, the respondent/DDA were to file a compliance affidavit and Commissioner (LD) DDA was also directed to be present on the next date of hearing; that till 03.05.2019 neither any compliance affidavit has been filed by the respondent/DDA in terms of order dated 25.04.2019 nor any exemption application from personal appearance of Commissioner (LD) DDA has been preferred by respondent/DDA; that on 03.05.2019 the matter was taken up only for adjudication of application preferred by the petitioner pursuant to an order dated 24.04.2019 passed by Commissioner (LD) DDA bringing to the notice of the Court the act of misconduct by Mr. Subu R, Commissioner (LD) DDA on 25.04.2019; that learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly argued that the order dated 16.02.2018 reflects that the respondent/DDA took a stand that the case for restoration of the lease deed is under process for onward transmission to the competent authority which shows that the respondent/DDA has processed the case of the petitioner positively in terms of order dated 29.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 11647/2017 and the respondent/DDA has malafidely passed the order dated 24.04.2019 against the true spirit of order dated 29.03.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 11647/2017 and also against their own stand taken in order dated 09.03.2017 passed by Commissioner (LD) DDA; that the case for restoration of lease deed in petitioner’s case is to be decided positively by Respondent/DDA and relied upon order dated 16.12.2018 which shows that matter is to be placed before Hon'ble Lt. General for approval only; that no arguments on merits of the contempt petition were addressed by the counsel for the parties on 03.05.2019 and the petitioner was awaiting the pronouncement of order in CM No.21078/2019 only and not the main contempt petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/DDA contended that in view of order dated 24.04.2019 passed by Commissioner (LD) DDA, the present contempt petition has been rightly disposed of by this Court on 03.05.2019 and the present review petition is an abuse of the process of law and sought dismissal of the same.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

6. From the perusal of the record it transpires that the present contempt petition was filed with the following prayer:

"PRAYER

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:-

(a) Initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying with the directions given by this Hon'ble Court in its order dated 29.03.2017 direct them to appear in person before this Hon'ble Court to explain their conduct and thereafter, they be suitably punished for committing contempt of this Hon'ble Court and heavy fine/penalty be imposed on the respondent to be paid by their own pocket for unnecessary harassing the petitioner.

(b) Pass such other or further orders this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

7. While considering the plea raised by the present petitioner, the predecessor bench o