PURANMALL GOENKA Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an aplication for condonation of delay of 197 days in preferring an application for review against an order dated 1st April, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in F.A.T. No. 1666 of 2003 by which the said Division Bench allowed a first appeal preferred against a decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract by setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and instead of that, by directing the defendant to refund the earnest money to the plaintif with interest.

(2.) The review application has been filed not only on the ground of alleged error apparent on the face of record but also on the ground of discovery of new materials.

(3.) In the application for condonation of delay, it is alleged that being dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench dated 1st April, 2005, the applicant preferred a special leave application before the Supreme Court of India but the said Court rejected such application for special leave. In the application, it is stated that the petitioner was advised to prefer a special leave application before the Supreme Court and accordingly, such application was filed on 4th May, 2005. The said special leave petition [SLP (Civil) No. 12930/2005] was moved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 18th July, 2005 and on that day, the said application was dismissed. According to the petitioner, thereafter, he approached his learned Advocate in New Delhi who advised the petitioner that the next course of action was to prefer a review application before the Supreme Court of India against dismissal of the SLP and consequently, a review petition was drafted and made ready. The said review application was thereafter filed before the Supreme Court on 16th August, 2005. According to the petitioner, the learned Advocate of the Supreme Court further expressed opinion that the petitioner could also file an application for review before this Court and accordingly, sought advise of Mr. Somnath Ray, Advocate who advised the petitioner that apart from filing a review application before the Supreme Court the petitioner had another remedy before this Court in the form of present review application. Accordingly, the petitioner had a consulation with a Senior Advocate of this Court regarding filing of the present review application and the said Senior Advocate opined that the review application should be filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner held further conference with another Senior Advocate and on 28th August, 2005, the latter advised the petitioner to file the present review application.