UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. KWALITY RESTAURANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON due consideration, CLMA No. 792 of 2008 is allowed and the delay in filing the review petition is hereby con­doned.

(2.) AS per office noting and report, a proper notice has been served upon revision petitioner (revisionist) for ap­pearance in the Court today either per­sonally or through counsel. Despite serv­ice of due notice, none appears on be­half of the revision petitioner. The need to issue and serve the aforesaid notice had arisen because petitioner's earlier counsel Mr. B.S. Khanka had unfortu­nately died.

(3.) IN view of the clear fact that in the counter claim, specific performance of an agreement was sought, the learned Court below held that relief for obtain­ing specific performance was outside the purview of a Small Causes Court under the aforesaid 1887 Act and accordingly held that the revision petitioner - defend­ant in the suit, if it so desired, could ap­proach a Court of competent jurisdic­tion for seeking appropriate relief (spe­cific performance) which was the sub­ject matter of the counter claim. Aggrieved, as noticed above, the aforesaid revision petition was filed which has been disposed of by shri Justice Rajesh Tondon (since retired) vide his judgment dated 18th September, 2007.