TILAK RAJ JAGGI Vs. PRIYA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These review applications have been filed by defendant No. 5 and 6 seeking review of order dated 22.11.2004. On that date case was fixed for disposal of IA No. 10572/2002 which is an application under O. 39 Rule 2A CPC filed by defendant No. 6. This is a suit for partition, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction having been filed by the plaintiff against his brothers and sisters. The suit relates to the following properties namely: 1. House No. 751-753, Gali Dorwali Paharganj, New Delhi 2.House No. F-14/17, Krishan Nagar Delhi 3. House No. 791-94, Gali Dorwali Paharganj, New Delhi 4. Property No. C-37/1 Lawrance Road, Delhi. 5. Industrial Plot B-1/A-23/E in Mohan Co-op. Industrial Estate, Delhi. 6. Tenanted shop No. 1113, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi.

(2.) On an application being IA No. 3018/96 filed by the plaintiff under O.39 Rule 1&2, CPC, this Court vide order dated 27.3.1996 had directed the parties to maintain Status Quo with regard to properties mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. Thereafter an application IA No. 10572/2002 was filed by defendant No. 6 under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC alleging therein that defendant No. 1 has violated the Status Quo order by putting locks on some rooms. A perusal of order dated 22.11.2004 reveals that when this application being IA No. 10572/2002 was taken up for arguments on 22.11.2004, learned Counsel for the parties after addressing arguments for some time, had agreed that a Local Commissioner be appointed to visit the properties in question i.e. 751-53, Gali Dorawali, Paharganj, New Delhi; 791-94, Gali Dorawali Paharganj, New Delhi and C-37/ 1, Lawrance Road, Delhi and prepare an inventory of goods, articles, merchandise lying therein. Accordingly, Mr. S.B. Vohra, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner with direction to inspect the said properties after due notice to the learned Counsel for the parties and also prepare an inventory of the goods, articles, merchandise etc. lying therein. Now defendant No. 5 and 6 have filed review applications contending that on 22.11.2004 this Court had also directed defendant No. 1 to 4 to open locks but the said direction does not figure in the order dated 22.11.2004. Therefore the said order may be modified so as to include a direction to unlock the premises.

(3.) Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, I think, no ground for review is made out. Review under Order 47, CPC or under Section 114, CPC can be allowed only if there is some mistake apparent on the face of the record or some new material fact has been brought to the notice of the Court which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of party concerned at the time of passing of order. The order dated 22.11.2004 was passed in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties. So the question of any portion of the order being left out does not arise. Moreover, the said IA NO. 10572/2002 has not been finally disposed of. The impugned order is in the nature of an interim order for ascertaining the nature of user as is clear from the order itself. Of course, if the Local Commissioner feels any hitch in carrying out the inspection or parties want any direction to open the lock they may move appropriate application in this regard. In view of above, both review applications are hereby dismissed. CS (OS) 749/1996 List suit for further directions before the roaster Bench on 25th October, 2005. Review Applications dismissed.