RAJIV LOCHAN Vs. NARENDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises an important question of law

(2.) The facts are in a narrow compass. Rajiv Lochan-petitioner herein had filed a suit for possession of the premises and recovery of Rs. 2,85,573/- as arrears of rent in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. The suit was made over to the Additional District Judge, Delhi for trial and disposal in accordance with law. The suit was decreed pursuant to a compromise between the parties on 21.4.98. The plaintiff moved an application under Sections 151,152,153, CPC seeking certain clarifications in respect of the said compromise recorded by the Court. The said applications were disposed of by Ms. Sunita Gupta learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide an order dated 19.1.02 thereby directing the plaintiff to return a sum of Rs. 39,000/- as the excess amount received by him as per the terms of the compromise. Subsequently an application under Order XLVII read with Section 151, CPC and another application under Section 340, Cr. P. C. was moved on behalf of the plaintiff seeking review/recall of the Order dated 19.1.02 passed by Ms. Sunita Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The said applications though addressed to the Additional District Judge was made over to the Court of learned Civil Judge, Delhi for disposal The learned Civil Judge disposed of and dismissed the said applications vide impugned order dated 24.1.03. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Om Prakash, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Sawhney, Advocate appearing for the respondent and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.