BRAHM SINGH AND ORS. Vs. NISHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking review of the order dated 29.3.2012 by which this regular first appeal was disposed of by a consent order. This review petition is in fact a third endeavour to seek re -arguments of the appeal on merits. On the first occasion the first appeal was in the absence of the parties heard on merits and dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 1.2.2011. The present review petitioners/appellants then filed a review petition seeking hearing and which review petition was allowed by the impugned order dated 29.3.2012 and the appellants were then heard once again on merits in the appeal and which is thus the second time when the appeal was heard on merits. The order dated 29.3.2012 shows that the appellants were represented before this Court not only by their counsel, but also by a senior counsel. The order dated 29.3.2012 also specifically records that arguments in the appeal were concluded and the judgment was to be dictated, and at which stage an agreement was recorded that the appellants will receive a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - with respect to their rights in the suit property and thereafter will not claim any right whatsoever in the suit property. The respondent had also initiated a criminal case against the review petitioners/appellants and the respondent was to withdraw the criminal case which was filed against the petitioners in terms of the consent order recorded on 29.3.2012.

(2.) INDUBITABLY the order dated 29.3.2012 which is sought to be reviewed was a consent order. Once the order is a consent order, such a consent order cannot be appealed from in view of the spirit of the provision of Section 96(3) CPC, unless the appellants claim that their consent was taken by force, fraud or coercion and which is not the case. The review petitioners/appellants then challenged this consent order before the Supreme Court and this challenge before the Supreme Court was withdrawn on 6.1.2014 and the Supreme Court in this Civil Appeal No. 20283/2013 passed the following order: -

(3.) IT is pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court dated 6.1.2014 that this review petition is filed and that too alongwith an application for condonation of huge delay of refiling of 491 days and which is alleged in the application for condonation of delay to be a "short delay".