q ) IN TI{E HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Civil Revision No.l03 of 2004 Shri Tej Pal ...petitioner rhroug[r Mr. Yashbeer Sethi, Advocate. Versus Shri Govind Vashislrt ...Respondent in person Date of llearing : March 15,2004 Date ofDecisions : March 2e,20M. ,4 .,,F CCIRAM: :]. " HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN l. Whetherreporters of local papers maybe allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be refered to the Reporter.or not? 3. Whether the judgmenr should be reported in the Digest? : \rIKRAI\{A.IIT SEN, .I. I Sr For Judgment, s€e the file of CRP No. g58 T 199E. Ia^ Y/\ March 22,2OA4 T\T tt (VIKRAMAJIT SEN ) JUDGE Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified I HTGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Civil Revision No.958 ol 1998 IN THE l. V.S.Saini & Anr. i-r.c.M. Ltd. ...Petitioner through Mr.slravan S inha, Advoeatc. ...Respondent through Mr.Mohit Gripta with lvfr.Raliesh Mukheeja Advrcates. Verstts WITH Civil Revision No.313 oi 200? 3. a_ {r. M.L.'l'halad Versns Ms.Anuja Beri @ Anuja Wahi & Other 3. M/s.Retiance Engg. & Electricals Corpoiation and Anr. . .. ['eti tioner through Mr. Sudhir Kurnar Shalma' Advocate. ... Respondents through Nemo WITH Civil Revision No.906 of 2002 ... ['etit ioner tlrough Mr. hamsfl $nigal, Advocate. Versus i SmlVeena Aggarwal ' .--ResPondent through Mr.Rai Kumar Selrawat with Mr.K.V. Kum'ar, Advocate' ) 4. WITH gjtril Revision No'214 of 2UU'l Versns i.lemo WITH Civil Revision No'518 of 2U03 ...ResPondent through ,/ l/ I I ...betitioner through Sharco ExPorts Pvt'Ltd dL t')rs' Mr. Shailender Paril' Advocate' Conti nental Carriers Ltd' 5. Alok Aggarwal e \tr versns ' To*a tJPtics (lndia) Pvt' Ltd' ...Petitioner through Mr. S.S. Jai'n, Advocate' ...ResPondent through Mr.Rohit Aggarwal with 'Ur. Roj""u Merkhedkdar' Advocates. WITH o; ': '{ ;' I I It D I _1 -t M/s. PumPen lntemational & Anr' ...Petitiorcn through ' Mr.J.C. Mahindroo, Advwate' Versus M/s. Sudarshan & Sons ...Respondents through Neuro WITH ;L. Civil Revision No'74 of 2UU4 frt ,- ..Petitioner through "Bal Dev Singh Mr.R.K.Saini, Advocate. Versus M/s Rare Fuel & Automobiles '1,i.i.r {'ft WITH ejvil Revision No' 1LD of 20U4 ...ResPondent througlt Mr.Nalin, TriPath i, Adv o'cate' -..Petitioner through Mr.Yahesh Anand, Advocate' Mls.Sintex lndustries Ltd' & On' Versus Sh.Ashutosh Ahluwalia & Anr' ...ResPondent through / Ms.Neerja Advocates for Respondents No' 1 &'2' C 1 9. Shri Tej Pal Slu'i Govind Vashisht f wlrH WITH Civit Revision No' 103 of 2004 , Mr v*r,u*l;:1fi:ft'*::i'i Versus ...Respondent in Persoll 10. Mls.Sintex lndustries Ltd' & Urs' Versus Sh.Ashutosh Ahl'uwalia & Anr' Civil Revision No' l 12 of 20U4.. WITH ...I'etitioner throu gh . Mr.Y'aliesh Anand, Advocate' ...ResPondents through Ms.Neeria Adv'ocates for ResPondents No' | &'2' I l. Shri Ram Chander Mislra Versns M/s hrbLic Financiers and Others ...Petitioner tlnough Mr.AbhaY TriPathi, Advocate' ...Respondent through Ne;n<r r OJRAM: * HON'BLE MR. JUST1CE VIKRAMAJIT 1. Whether repofiers of local papers may be [o see ttre Judgment? 'Io be referrerl to tlte Reporter rrr nqt? Wltether the judgrnent sltould be reported itt the Digest? Date of Hearine : March'15' 2004 Date of Decisions : March 22"2004' SEN allowed Y.n Y*s Yr* : VIKMMAJTI SEN. J. 1. The Petitioners in these Revisions were Detendants in sundry sunmary suits who had.unsuccesstully applied for leave to defend those suits. The Respondents have raised the preliminary objection questioning their very maintainabiliry of the Revisions' It is not as if one is on virgin tenitoly, since this question has been considered by the Division Bench oi AIR 19?? Delhi 226.lthad been noted in that Judgment that two Lrarned Judges had returned diveryent opinions on this subject' B'C' Misra' J' had opined that a Revision is maintainable whereas D'K' Kapur' J' took the diamerrically opposite view that only an appeal against the decree can be entertained. The Division Bench clarit'ied thar a Revision enrailed only irlitl il Iilj this Court in Siri Krishan B "l t I t t I \', the bringing of an "error' to the notice of the High Court and conterred no turther right of hearing on the aggrieved parry. lt went on to discuss that an order refusing to grant l-eave to l)etend has far rcaching consequences and would normally fall within the ambit of the phrase "any case which has been decided", bringing the adjudication to a virtual end so tar as the I)etendant is concrrned. It held that irrespective of the decree that may have been passed, a Revision against such an order is competent' The Division Bench however decided the controversy on the assumption that such orders were not appealable. This view would norrnally have held sway but tor fwo subsequent events - fintly the observations of the Hon'ble SuPreme Court . anothel AIR, 1981 sC 778t5, and secondly, the enforcement of the amendmentscarriedtoSectionl15oftheCKjbyAct46oflgggwith effect frout 1.7.20At" 7. lt may also. be mentionbd that S'N' Kapoor' J' has tollowed (srryra) in M/s' Skylark Motors v' Lakshmi commercial Bank L,imited. AIR ]iggi..Delhi 46, but Babulal Khimji's case (supra) was neither cited nor discussed by my l-earned lJrother' Copies of orders of various other Benches have also been tited where Revision P petitionsagainstsimilarorderspassedunderUrderXXXVIoftheCI{ hadbeenheardanddecided;Noneofthesedecisions,however,containa discussionofwhetherrevisorypowelsorrghttohavebeenexercised instead of directing the Petitioner to seek its remedy by way of an APPeal. $, In Babulal l(Jrimji's case (supia) a suit l'1d been tited on the originatsideoftlreBombayHighCour.tfortheSpecitlcPerformanceofa conffact, in which proceedings the interim relief of the aprpointment of a Receiver of t'e s'it properry had been prayed for. The L'earned Single Judgehaddectinedthereliefoftlreappointment.ofaReceiverandhad alsonotgrantedtheinteriminjunctionprayedfor.Theensuingappealwas dismissedbytheDivisionBenchasnotmaintainablconthegroundthat -l theimpugnedorderwasnota..Judgment.ascontemplatedbyClausel5 T' of the Lrtters pate.t of the High court. . No doubt, in the corrse of its detailedJudgmenttheHon.bleSupremeCotuthadclarifiedthatthe CourtwasnotconcemedwiththerevisionalpowersoftheHighCourt (paragraphT5).TheApexCourttooknotegithefactthatunlesssuch interlocutoryordenweretobeheldanalogotlstoajrrdgrnent,these orderswouldbe.imperviorrstoanattackexceptinthesupremeCourt. \\ i The t-avoured view was the reating of such orders as judgments' so as to be amenable to judiciat review under the Lrtten Patent' ln the 120'h paragraphtheCourtenumeratedsomei|'lustrationsofinterlocutoryorders which may be treated as judgments within the meaning ol Letters Patent' one of which is an order declining lrave to Detend the suit in an action under urder xxxvll of the cPc' Counsel tor the Revisionist have , fstrenuously s'bmitted that the obseruations must be restricted only to casesofLettersPatentandnotwheretheHighCourtexercisespowers nnder section 115 of the cFC in respect of such orders passed in the District Courls. Atthough tltis contention is attractive' in view of the settled position that even obiter dicta of the Supneme court is binding on alltheotherCourts,tlrgobseruationoftheApexCourtthatan interlocutory tlrder such as the retusal to permit l-eave to Defend is a t ,i -r^- +L.o .rmis.inn in,.siri Krishna's Judgment inetTicacious' .Judgmen[,',rendenthedecisionin,SiriKrishna.sJrrdgment on a deeper cogitation, it appean to me that if an order in respect ot= which the redress of an appeal has deliberately and consciopsly not been toflnally provided tbr can nevertheless be assailed''i,n appeat by deeming or treating it as a judgment, no other r.rn"dy can be legitimalely invoked whereanappealiseventuallyavailableagainstanorder.Theretbre,in my opinion the lcrimji dicta would apPly a fortiori to legal assaults of the presentgere'rvheretheunsuccesstuldetendantcancertaintyavailofa secondopportrrnitytopresentitsdetbrrcebywayot'filinganepped. , be o[ advairtage to recall the provisions of Order XII Rule6oftheCrc,whichenablestheCourttopassadrcreeforthwith,if in its opinion the Detendant has admitted vital tacts' such an order ls not .tppeatable under Order XLIII of the CI,C' It has been held in Smt' ,1996AI HC5050(Kant.)thatsuchanorderwouldpaltak.eqfthenafureofa jrrdgmentrvithinthemeaningofsection2(2)oftheClC,whichcanbe attackedonlybywayofanappealandnotviaarevision.lrespecftully concur with this view uffeselvedty' 'This court has also taken the view that an order returning a plaint under urder vII Rule 11 of the cFC is not a ^ ^L^lt^-no r:il ' vutneraDre to a challenge either under Article 227 of the constitution or \-e\L- , .' r,- - ,-,r,--'i rQoo l'erirn (-lhonra & Othen v' Union of lndia .x-ro,ion 115 of the cFtj. (See Tarun Chopre & (Jrhers, lgyz (2) Dethi Lawyer 250, M.L. Aggarwal v' National ,ThermalPowerCorporationLimited,49(1993)DethiLawTimesT35, AtmaPrakashv.Roshan[41,19991AD(Delhi)sl5andShriKartar Singhv.Smt.Shanti&othen,ll0(2004)I)LT156whichhasbeen dismissedbymeonthisshofigroundonFdbruaryg,2004).lfsuch t .t0 orders can be viewed as '.judgments" as envisaged in section 2(2) of the C!C,onaparityofreasoning,refttsattograntleavetodefendaSuinmary suit can only be assailed by the avenue of an appeal' 5.ItmustbeborneinmindthatOrderXXXVllisapandectofits own'anditsfrontierscanbebrreachedonlyintheeventualitiescontained .\ flilvein.ltseemstomethatRutezis.notgivenilreweightageit commands.ltprescribesthattheprocddureforsummaryaSwellas ordinarysuitsshallbetlresalnesaveaSprovidedintlrefasciculusof orderxxxvllorcesummonsinFormBareissuedinaccordancewith Rule 2 thereof, sub-rule (3) stiputates that "appearance" must be entered bytlreDefendantotherwisetheavermentsintheptaintwouldbedeemed ,tohavebeenadmitted.While.onthispointandonanaside,lfeel ' "o*o"red to undencore the tut*ity of rhis formarity since in acruarity irs ttn-..r is ro detay the determination of a snmmary suit' lt only raises an .alarmfortheDetendantwho,afterenteringappearance,ernploysevely deviceandstratagemtodelaythesuit.Thepositionwouldbeappreciably betterir,ratherthancomplyingwiththet-aciteformalityofmerely enteringappea]ance,lhel)etendantisreqrriredtotiletheapplication seekingleavetodetendthesuitwithinastipulatedperiod,akintowhatis n lq H I I I envisaged nnder setion 258 of the Derhi Rent contror Act. sub-section (4) of Rule 3 of the urder xxxvll is an even greater inanity since it cannot be expected that the Plaintiff would suddenly discover a defence to his plaint even where the Detendant does not show any cause against it by anticipating the detbnce by reading the mind of the Defendant' Eve n in the t-ace of srrch pbintless steps having punctiliously to be covered the \.-/ , -r ^ L,,^^rr..rr rhrr rrnndec.t exrrects this of him. X ptaintift- nevertheless does so because tlre pandect expects I .-, (7r \a \ Can the Plaintift combine the issuance of notice with the sewice of summons for judgment? The answel is obviously in the negative br:cause thesp.ecialprovisionscannotbebreached.Rrrle(3)(b]ofOrderXXXVI of the crc then deals with the possibilities which would attend the tlting of or failure to apply tor leave to detend the suit' Before parting with the narration of the sequenc€ of urder xxxv[ events, it witl" be interesting to note that whilst det-ault in entering appearance leads to the consequence that "the allegations in the ptaint shalt be deemed to be admitted and the' ptaintitT shall be entitled to a decree',, in the event of a default in applying for leave to defend "the plaintitT shall be entitled to judgmenl forthwith". The scope of Court's consideration in the second event is we[[ nigh nil whereas in tlre lirst event the Court must peruse thc plaint painstakingly to satisfy itself that a decree can be passed predicated on it' -' I lt I I I il L2 Evenintheinstanceofordinarysuitsthisdistinctionwillso,onvanish because under the amended regime of the crc' a written statement is requiredtobefiledwithinthirlydaystj.omthedlteofseruiceof sulnmons on him. Theretore seldom would such an occasion now occul' since if a Detendant neglects to file a written statement within the restricted and prescribed period in the code of civil Procedure and also -r\-fua,r, ro pur in appeamnc€, a judgmenr would be pronounced tbrthwi0t' since urder xxxvll Rule 3(6) specitlcally stipulates that if leave to detendthesuitisrefusedthePtaintitfshattbeentitledtojudgment'lfind no conceivable cause to digress trom tlre established procedure' since this rvill additionally render Rule 7 of order XXXVII wholly otiose' This orderconstitutesacompleteCodeinitself.Thereisnojustiticationfor conceptua| uingan intermediary stage in summary suits, viz. between this t refusar of Leave to r)etendant and the passing of a judgment/decree' -1F Eu"n in those ca-\es. where there is a hiatus berween the two events' because a decree/judgment is not passed'by the Judge simultaneously withtherefusalofLravetol)etend'theDetendantshorrldbeheardonly after the judgment is pronounced. This approach can be extrapolated trom the celebrated decision of the Hbn'ble Supdme Court in Ariun Singh vs.MohindraKumarandothers.AlR]964SC993whereithadbeen \b t3 ?, -/;'r I enunciated that once the coufi has adjourned the suit for pronouncing judgment,theaffectedpaltycannotfileanapplicationrrnd'erurderIX Rnle 7 0f. the cIrC but must await tlrc final orders/judgment and thereatlbrseektoritssettingasideunderorderlXRule13oftheCPC.It isexactlythisprogessionorSequenceofeventsthatisenvisagedbythe IrgislatweinthefasciculusoforderXXXVIof,tlreCI-I_jarrdlwould nottiketoimpartanyviolencetothissalutaryexpectation.Thismust havebeenthedialecticwhichoccasionedtheobservationoftheApex couf in Khimii's case (supra) that the interlocutory order retusing Lfave to Detend a summary' suit partakes the tbrm of a judgment' thereby makingitvulnerabletoassaultonlythrorrghasubstantiveandregular appeal.lfpiecemealassault$arepermissibleevenataninchoateStagethe pu{poseofcarvingoutaSumm,alyprocedrrrewouldberenderedillusory. An interpretarion leading to such results must be abjured by the court' 6.Thepnovisionsofsectionl15oftlreCodeofCivilltocedureasit presently exists, and what it was prior to the elforlment of tlrc civiL FtocedureCodeAnrendmentAct,lgggarereproducedbetowforfacility of ret-erence and comParisoYt: I t I! I j t 'l I I : { G ,l*, l,I ... \'l t4 IAIP gRIOR TO TI{E ENtr}ORCF. TF'ITT or cPc (AJHENDMBT{T) AcT' t999' S.Itd. Revlelon.{f} The Htg}r Cotrrt may call for the record of anY case *hi"tt h^" been dectded by any Court subord.Inate to such HIgh Court and'tn whlch no appeal !.les therero, and lf such subo'rdlnate Co urt aPP€ars- (a) ro have exerclsed a Jurlsdlctlon not vested ln tt bY law, or [b) to have falled tLr exerclse a Jurlsdlcrlon so vested. or ic) ro haw acted in rhe e'terclse of its lurtsdtction iUegqlfY or wtth nuterlal lrregula-rttY' the Htgh Court nui'y nralie such order ln the case ag lt thlnks flu Pres€nt Provldoo S.116. Revtaton.-(f) The Hl$r Cotft may call for the rec<lrd 'of any cas€ whictr has been declrieci by an]' Court subordtnate to such Hlgli Court and ln whlch no appeal lles t]rereto' and If such subordlnate Co un aPPears- (a) to have e:crclsed a Jurlsdlctlon not vested ln lt bY law, or tb) to have falled to exerclse a lurlsdlcilon so vested' or i") to have acteci ln rhe exerclse of lls Jurisdlcdon llle4allY or wtth -h Provld.ed that the Fllgh'Court shali not' under thls sectlon' vary or revers€ a-ny order made, or a-ny order deddbig an lssue, tn rhe course of a sult or ourer proceedtng, eKcePt where-- ' (al ire Order' lf tt had bee:r made In favor.r of rhe party applyrng for revlston' woulci have flnaliY dlsPosed of *re sult or other proceedlng, or (b) tlrs otdc, tr allorrd' to at8rrd, g6rrkl occaslm a falhrre of Juatlce or causa fureParable fnjury to the PartY Fgnrhet crhom lt rrae rade. l2l ^Ihe HIgh Court shall not, under thls sectlon, va-ly or re\ters{e any decree or oder agalnst whlch an appeal lles etther to tUJ Htgtr Coun or to arry Cour subordlnate tlrereto. Eralanatton: In thrls secilon' ihe expresston -any case wlrtch has been dectded" tricludes any order nr'ade, or any order decldlng an lssue, tn rhe cours€ of a sult or other proceedtng' under LhJs sectlon, vary Lu reverse a-try order niade, or arry order decldlng an lssue, ln trre course of a sujr or odter proceed.lngl, €xcept where ttre order, lf it Lad been made tn favour of the party applylng for revlslon' would have Ilnaily ai"p6""a of ttre sult or other proceedtnEs. 12) The Htgh Court shali not, unrier thls sectlon, vary or reverse anv decree or oder agalnst whlch an appeal Ues etther to tha Htgtr Court or to any Cou:r suborcilnate rherero- (3) A Rwldon sball not oPerate as a stsy of sutt c' other Procee'l{ng before the court excePt u'her€ euch eult or other lroceedlng ts etsyod by the Iltgb Court. Explanarton.--In thts segtlon, *re expresslon *any case whtclr has been dectded' lncludes any order made, or a-ny order decldlng ^n lssue, .ln *re course of a sult or orhrer procebdlngs' .tv nraterlal LrregularltY' I rhe Hlgh Court may make such order ln i the caie as lt thlnks flu I Provided trar the HIgh Court shall not' I nwl / V r5 7. On a reading of the juxtaposed provisions of Section 115 of rhe CFC it will be easity discernibte that two changes have been brought in. Firstly, the consideration is now irrelevant that the order' if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the parfy agaipst whom it was made; srcondly, it has br3gn clarified that the pendency of a Revision shall not oPrate as a stay of a suit or other proceedings. The position that a Revision should o*0 entertained only in respect of those orders which would have finalty disposed of the suit or other prrceedings has not been altered. In these circumstances assuming that a decrce has not been passed although leave to detbnd has not been allowed since the prrceedings still pending this Revision is not maintainable. hior to the amendment, the intertbrence of this Courl was possibte under the dcleted clause (b) of the ltoviso. In Siri Krishan's case (supra) the Division Bench had poignantty obserued the et-t'ect of the amendmeng which were at that point otj time carried out to Section 115 of the Crc viz. the addition of proviso to sub-section (1). It thereatler opined that "obvionsly, the impugned order in this case does not toif under Clause (a) of the hoviso. In my opiniln iq however, does fall under Clause (b). lt witl be a great faiiure of justice if Revision is barred at the threshold on account ol the proviso because under Order I i I lI I I I I i,l I6 .17 Rule 2 II:r- ellect of retusal to grant lcave to appear and det'end can be the automatic passing of a decree against the Defendant". Clause (b) of Section 115 of the CFC has now been deleted *d, th.r"forc, the applicabiliry of this Judgment,.even if the ratio in Khimii's case (suprd is tb be ignored, has been redrrced drastically., if.not removed entirely. Moreover, the Division Bench had proceeded on the a-ssumption that "admiftedly, the impugned order is not an appealable order" which begs the very questiorl which has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Coufi. It ha-s been strenuously contended before me that an order declining [.eave to Detbnd is appealable as a Judgment. 8. It has also been observed by the Apex Court in Strjv Shalcti coop. Houslng soclety, Nagpur vs. su"aral Developers and others. (2oo3) 6 scc 86.9 that the amendments are procedural in character and.are theietore to be applied to all prrceedings that have to be . decided. ,In other words, the amendments have retrospective -t. applicabiliry. In its more r@enr judgment rendered in surya Dev Rai venus Ram chander Rai and other. AIR 2003 Suprenre Court 3t144, the Hon'ble Supreme Cour has removed all possible doubrs by posing rhe question - "is an aggrieved penon completely deprived of the remedy of judicial review if he has lost at the hands of rhe original courr and the \\ iI t, ilti lk I' tl n r, ' .tr'I Fl' k, ti iuli, ti ffi ti [i H 2i .t1. H ti DI T7 .Appellate courf, though a case of gross failure of justice having been occasioned can be made out?" This was answered in.the tbllorvins paragraphs: "In Shiv Shakri Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur Versus lWs. Swaraj Dev'elop*o uiA others, (2003) 4 Scale 241, anotlrer iwo-Judges bench of this Courtdealt wilh Strtion l15 of rheCpIr. TheCourt at the end ot: its judgment noted the submission of the learned cc.mnsel for a party that even if thc revisional applications are held to be not maintainable, tliere should not ,be a bar on a challenge being made under Arricle 221 of the Constitution for which an opportunity was prayed to be allowed. The Court observed,-"if any rbmedy is available to a part), no libcrty is necessary to be granted tbr availing the same." We are of tlre opinion tlrat the cufiailment of revisional jurisdiction of the High court does not talie away - and could not have taken away - the constifutional jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari to a civil conrt nor the power of . " . superintendence'cont'erred on the High court under ,.! Artiele 277 of. tlrc Constitution is talren away or whittled down. The power exists, untrammelled by the amendment in Section 115 of the CpC, ancl is available to be exercised subject to rules oi self discipline and practice wliich are well settled. 9. If an order declining leave to detbnd a summary suit thereby making a judgment inevitable can be attacked in a Revision and also in an Appeal, it would lead to the anomalous situation where a surnmary suit becomes more tedious and time consnmine than,an ordinalv action for Ir ut b u ,,[ fitl ,fl ,Ei lffi ei l8 recovery of money. I would assiduously endeavour to eradicate a regime allowing muttifudinous . avenues of redressal. In the. wake of the amendments eftected to Section t 15 of the CPC a Revision can no longer be pnet-erred on 'the ground that the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a taiture of justice or cause irreparable injury. In preferring the conclusion that these Revisions are not maintainable, the Plaintift-/Defendants have not been adversely ptaced. The judgment can be .: assailed in an appeal, the only ditt-erence hitlg the necessiry to pay ad valorem court fees. This scarcely warrants any thought keeping in perspective that the alternative would inexorably lead to a multipliciry and plenitude of reliefs. 10., Aprplying the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khimji's-- case I,have no hesitation in holding that a Revision is not maintainable. ' against the refusal to grant l-eave to Detend a summary suit. After the judgment is passed the Defendant may assail the decision by way of an appeal. In the event that conditional leave has been allowed to the Det'endant he must abide it and perform the obligations cast upon him or t'ace the inevitabilitv of a judgment being prronounced against him becausc of non{ompliance of thepo.nditions. Ir would be incongruous if hc were I I I o\l i llltVI U'I I .t I i !t I I .i ttl il iI.L dti'I\ I 1I r to be better placed det'end altogether. l9 the'Defendant who has been denied leave to 11. The Revisions are dismissed. However, the interim ordens shall continue to operate tbr thitry days from today. Parties shall bear their respective costs. r. --- l-r r March 2L2UM 'n/tp' w (VIKRAMAJIT SEN) JUDGD dl t -\te\^ Vo 13.4.ZO{'4 + cM No.zgl7oli004 rn CRp N0.IO3/2004 1 ts dismissed a,s not maintainable. April I3,2OO4 g.l; 5 ,a'-J -/ o\ Se.4, J. ryWtt%. f*g/,r U /'\ 4z A?,/r? (M,y;, (l Yr41 |- ViliramaJit (s %r7 .07 .2009 Present: None for the Petitioner. Mr. Keshav V. Hegde, Adv. for the Revisionist' +CM No.4269i2009 & RP No.138/2009 in CRP No.103/2004 * There is a delay of 1-820 days in filing the present Re'view Petition. Be that as it may, the d'ispute between the parties has come to an end in view of the Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 19.10.2006 in Special Leave Petition No.L6B63/2006; whereby the Special Leave Petition was dismissed on the facts of the case. " In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the Revisionist seeks leave to withdraw the Review Petition. Review Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, as prayed for' I ,l'er4 V \'--. VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. JULY t7,2009 tp iQ.