: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.102 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6673 OF 2007 Sammy D. Kataria .. Petitioner V/s. Sanjeev M. Jhangiani & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. O.P. Pandey i/by M/s. Pandey & Co. for the Petitioner Mr. H. Mansukhani for the Respondent No.1 ..... CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10th AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard Shri Pandey appearing for petitioner and Mr. Mansukhani appearing for respondent No.1 who is the only contesting respondent. 2. In this Review Application, delay was condoned and thereafter the matter has been placed before me for admission. 3. The only ground upon which the Review of order dated 28th November, 2007 in the subject writ petition is sought is that the petitioner has discovered new and important evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not : 2 : within the knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order dated 28th November, 2007 was passed. 4. Inviting my attention to page 188 of the review petition paper book, Mr.Pandey submitted that the certificate is issued by the competent authority upon inspection of site visit. The certificate would demonstrate that the premises are covered by the Notification which was published in the Government Gazette dated 28th July, 1994. He submits that once the certificate is produced, which was not available at the time when the writ petition was argued, then, it is clear that unless the 1st respondent complies with Section 22 of the Slum Act, he could not have executed or applied for executing the subject decree, of Eviction and possession of the suit property. 5. Mr. Pandey has taken me through the Review Petition and para 8 of my order and contended that the application was made by the petitioner for obtaining Slum Certificate on 5th May, 2008 and the same was obtained and now annexed. Prior thereto, it is contended that several attempts were made, but this certificate could not be produced. In this behalf, Mr. Pandey relied upon paras 10 to 12 of the review petition. 6. Mr. Mansukhani, on the other hand, submitted that this very document was considered by the Court at the time : 3 : of disposal of the writ petition. This was the very document, which was produced before the Court below. He submitted that the suit properties are not the same as are mentioned in the Notification dated 28th July, 1994. The area being declared as Slum is different and distinct matter than the suit premises. Unless and until it is proved that the suit property is a slum and, therefore, covered by a Notification which applies to the area declared as a slum, it is not permissible to urge that prior permission of the Competent Authority under Slum Act was necessary to execute the decree. 7. Having perused the review petition and the annexures thereto including the purported slum certificate which is annexed as Annexure "M" to the review petition, I am satisfied that there is no new and important material or evidence which can be said to have been discovered now and which was not available at the time of the disposal of the writ petition. Apart from the fact that the review petition does not contain the necessary averments as to enable this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, additionally, I find that the very document which is stated to be discovered was considered by this Court in the main matter. The Court has assigned reasons while upholding the conclusions of the Revisional Court. The Court below rightly held that the suit premises must be : 4 : covered by the Notification and unless it is proved, there is no question of the decree becoming unenforceable or inexecutable. 8. In the light of the above and finding that there is no ground for review, in my view, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. I also find that there is substance in the submission of Mr. Mansukhani appearing for the Respondent No.1 that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to any discretionary or equitable relief. He has taken time to vacate the premises but has not vacated the same. Thereafter, he has filed a review petition merely to delay and defeat the execution of the decree passed by consent. Since I am inclined to dismiss the review petition on merits in the light of the above findings, I need not consider the pleas about the conduct of the petitioner. Review petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)