ROSHAN LAL Vs. SHIV GENERAL FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considerable portions of this application for review are most objectionable as they purport to reproduce observations allegedly made, and opinions allegedly expressed, by us when the appeal was heard and dismissed. It has been repeatedly held that it is very improper to attempt to reproduce the observations made by judges in court in the course of the hearing of a case. We do not propose to spend time in trying to correct the record by dealing with each observation or opinion attributed to us in this application. Suffice it to say that what is stated in this application is far from correct.

(2.) One of the grounds for review, raised in this application, is that since, in the course of the preliminary hearing, we had sent for the record of the trial court, we ought to have admitted the appeal. It seems to us that this proposition is utterly preposterous. For, if this proposition were to be accepted, then in every case in which the appellate court felt the need to send for the record, it would have to admit the appeal. Then, why send for the record at all ? Such a proposition makes nonsense of Order 41 rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which clearly envisages the dismissal of an appeal even after the record has been called.

(3.) We have heard counsel at length on the points raised in this application for review, and even on the merits of the appeal. It is patent from the history of the case, that the purchaser has not been able to obtain possession of the shop in question although the sale deed was executed in his favour on 2nd June 1966. Thus, almost 20 years have passed without his obtaining any relief. The trial judge has dealt exhaustively with all the issues, and we could not find any flaw in his reasoning. In our opinion, the appeal was merely an attempt to further delay the delivery of possession of the shop to the purchaser. We see no reason whatsoever for reviewing the order of dismissal which we made on 9th July 1985.