$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11042/2006 TIKA RAM BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through None versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. for applicant. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER O R D E R % 17.02.2020 CM APPL. 6388/2020 1. The following substantive prayer is made in the application: “a) Pass an appropriate order or direction that the disposal of the Writ Petition No. 11042 of 2006 and observations and findings made therein do not have any bearing on the civil suit filed by the applicant herein [bearing CS (OS) No. 196/2008 in this Hon’ble Court and now pending in court of Sh. V.K. Dhaiya, Ld. ADJ, Dwarka District Courts, Delhi] and the reliefs claimed in the said suit by the applicant.” 2. This application has been moved in a disposed of writ petition. 3. The writ petition was disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court on 23.10.2009. 4. A perusal of the order sheet would show that the applicant was represented by an advocate i.e., one, Ms. Sonam Mittal on that date. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant says that an application for W.P.(C) 11042/2006 1/2 impleadment was made in the writ petition and that, one of the prayers, made was that the writ petition should be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant says that the observations made in the order dated 23.10.2009 have no bearing on the issues raised in the applicant’s suit i.e. CS(OS) No.196/2008. 7. To my mind, this application cannot be entertained for more than one reasons. First, it is moved in a disposed of writ petition. Second, the applicant was represented on the day when the writ petition was disposed of via speaking order. Third, the petitioner has approached this Court after over a decade. Lastly, I am sure that the concerned court would be able to make out what part of the observations made in the order dated 23.10.2009 is relevant insofar as the suit is concerned. 8. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 17, 2020 rb W.P.(C) 11042/2006 2/2