KRISHNA PRAKASH Vs. DILIP HAREL MITRA CHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By a judgment and decree dated 5th January, 1996, the suit of the applicant-respondent, for ejectment and mesne profits, was decreed by the Court of an Additional District Judge, Delhi. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, non applicants/defendants filed an appeal being RFA No.181/96 before this Court on 6th April, 1996. On an application for stay of execution of the decree, by an order dated 3rd October, 1996, partial relief was granted and the execution of the decree, in so far as it related to recovery of possession, was stayed. The prayer for stay of execution of decree for mesne profits was, however, declined. The appeal was finally dismissed on 10th August, 2001.

(2.) Now, review of the judgment in appeal is being sought by the applicant-respondent on the ground that the arguments advanced in relation to the rate of mesne profits for the period there was a stay of recovery of possession, which constituted part of written submissions, have gone unnoticed and as a result the same were not dealt with and there was no adjudication on that aspect of the matter. This, according to applicant/respondent, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record making out a ground for review of the judgment dated 10th August, 2001.

(3.) The non applicants/defendants contest the application on the plea that there being no error apparent on the face of record, there is no ground for review of the judgment and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is added that having accepted the decretal amount of Rs.46,34,417.00 with costs of Rs.20,000.00 on 24th October, 2001 in full and final satisfaction of the decree, in addition to delivery of peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises, the applicant/respondent is estopped from challenging the judgment.