MONO CAPS INDIA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this review application, aggrieved by the order dated 30th April, 2004, by which the writ petition was dismissed. The review application is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, inasmuch as the review application was filed on 26th October, 2004. It is urged in the application for condonation of delay that petitioner had preferred LPA.No.800/04, against the dismissal of the writ petition. After some arguments, petitioner sought leave to withdraw the appeal before the Division Bench on 18th October, 2004, with liberty to move a review application. Petitioner's contention was that the benefit of one time settlement had been denied by the impugned judgment on the ground that the decree had been executed, while it had not been so executed.

(2.) As the parties are agreed that the review application may be disposed of on merits, the delay in preference of the review application is condoned.

(3.) Mr.J.P.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner/review applicant submits that the execution of the decree was still pending and hence the impugned judgment, which proceeded on the premise that decree had been executed and hence denied one time settlement, deserves to be recalled. Initially, Mr.Gupta had submitted that the execution was pending in view of the objection by a third party against the sale of the properties, which were sought to be sold in execution proceedings. However, subsequently it was stated that objection to the execution had been filed by the petitioner.