PRIT PAL SINGH Vs. RAMESH KUMAR DORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 7696/2014 (under Section 5 of the Limitation Act)

(2.) THIS Court while coming to the conclusion had observed in the order dated 6th January, 2014 that the petitioner has been able to raise prima -facie triable issues and the application for leave to defend was allowed to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent. Four weeks time was granted to the petitioner to file the written statement and the parties were directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 17th February, 2014. It was also observed in the said order that the proceedings before the trial Court be expedited.

(3.) AFTER passing the said order, the respondent filed the present review petition under Order XLVII and Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC for review of the order dated 6th January, 2014. The main contention of Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/review -petitioner is that in the order dated 6th January, 2014, certain incorrect facts were recorded in para 11 of the said order. He submits that in the reply to the application for leave to defend, the respondent has fairly mentioned that the property No. F -14/19, Krishna Nagar, Delhi -110051 is owned by him. However, he had not been running any business from the said property. The said aspect has been dealt with by the trial Court in para 4 of the eviction order dated 3rd March, 2012. Therefore, the recording of facts by this Court in para 11 of the order dated 6th January, 2014 are incorrectly mentioned.