IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Re-consideration /MCC application No. 262 of 2010 In Civil Revision NO. 48 of 2008 Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon ……..…Petitioner. Versus Shri Irtiza Hussain & others ………..Respondents. Shri Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon, is present in personal for the applicant. Shri H.M Bhatia, Advocate, present for the Respondent on behalf of Shri Arvinad Vashistha. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Reconsideration Petition MCC No. 262 of 2010, moved by the defendant /applicant, in which prayer is made as under;- “(a) Set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2010, passed by the Hon’ble Justice Prafulla C. Pant and direct the matter for re- hearing only in the court of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. 2 (b) Pass an order directing the Irtiza Hussain to deposit Rs. 14 crores in this court which was received by them admittedly without consent or information to the Hon’ble court during the pendency of this case. (c) Pass an order directing Director General of Police Uttarakhand to provide adequate protection to petitioner N.S. Hoon during his visit to his hotel in Mussoorie. (d) Any other order or orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate.” 2. On the aforesaid application Hon’ble the Chief Justice has endorsed as under;- “Bench hunting is inappropriate. List before Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Pant.” 3. Under the above order passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, this application is listed before this Court today. 3 4. I heard applicant Nirmal Jeet Singh Hoon in present at length, and perused the papers referred by him. 5. It is not made clear under what provision of law this application has been moved. 6. The brief history of the case is that a SCC suit No. 41 of 1974 was instituted against the present applicant in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Dehradun. Said suit was filed by the alleged landlord for recovery of arrears of land and mesne profits and also for eviction of the defendants. After 34 years of litigation, said suit could be decreed by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2008. Against said order, civil revision No. 48 of 2008 was filed by the present applicant. Said civil revision alongwith civil revision No. 51 of 2008, was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2009, by the then Chief Justice. Thereafter the applicant moved a review application MCC No. 633 of 2009, which was defective and said application was dismissed ex-parte vide order dated 02.09.2009. A recall application MCC No. 711 of 2009 was moved on 23.09.2009. The said 4 recall application was listed before this Bench, as the Hon’ble Judge (Chief Justice) who heard and dismissed the revision and disposed of the review application had been superannuated. 7. The recall application MCC No. 711 of 2009 was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2010, after hearing the present applicant at length. 8. Now a Reconsideration Application has been moved to set aside the order dated 18.03.2010, passed by this Court. Neither this Bench nor Hon’ble the Chief Justice has any jurisdiction set aside the order as prayed by the applicant. The applicant should have approached the Apex Court to challenge the order passed by this Court. In his arguments before this Court he alleges that a fraud has been played in the court of Small Causes, Dehradun. However said judgment and decree appears to have attained finality after the dismissal of civil revision on 23.07.2009. This Bench can not enter into factual aspects of the matter agitated in the suit, particularly 5 when the present application is not maintainable under any provision of law. 9. In the above circumstances of the case, this Court only dismiss this application which is not maintainable under any law. The Reconsideration MCC Application No. 262 of 2010 is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:23.04.2010 parul 6