MEERUT KENDRIYA THOK UPBHOKTA SAHAKARI BANDAR Vs. VAKIL CHAND JAIN AND ORS ETC.ETC.Q

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 1381-1384 of 2017, Judgment Date: Feb 03, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                     CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1381-1384 OF 2017
        [ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.3988-3991/2017]
                    [ARISING FROM CC NOS.2119-2120/2017]


MEERUT KENDRIYA THOK UPBHOKTA SAHAKARI BANDAR                   APPELLANT(S)


                                VERSUS

VAKIL CHAND JAIN AND ORS ETC.ETC.                              RESPONDENT(S)


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

      Delay condoned.
2.    Issue notice.
3.    Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned counsel, appears and  accepts  notice  for
the respondents.
4.    Leave granted.
5.    The appellant is aggrieved by the orders dated  13.01.2017  passed  by
the High Court dismissing the  applications  for  condonation  of  delay  in
filing the review petitions  as  well  as  consequential  dismissal  of  the
review petitions.
6.    The appellants had come up before this Court on  an  earlier  occasion
and by order dated 5.8.2016, in  SLP(C)  Nos.18912-18913/2016,  liberty  was
granted to the appellants to file a review petition before  the  High  Court
against  the  judgment  dated  17.3.2016  in  Civil  Misc.   Writ   Petition
No.29268/1992 and 31913/1997.
7.    It is seen from the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by  the  High  Court
that the applications were dismissed for want of prosecution.  We have  gone
through the applications for condonation of delay, it is fairly  clear  that
the main part of the delay is on account of the prosecution of  the  special
leave petition before this Court in the earlier round.
8.     Therefore,  in  order  to  avoid  further  round  of  litigation   on
restoration and the  condonation  of  delay,  we  set  aside  the  order  of
dismissal for default of the applications  for  condonation  of  the  delay.
The said applications are restored  and  the  delay  in  filing  the  review
petitions before the High Court is condoned,  we request the High  Court  to
dispose of the review petitions on merits.  In  order  to  enable  the  High
Court to do so, the impugned orders passed by the High Court in  the  review
petitions are also set aside.   Since  it  is  a  long  pending  matter,  we
request the High Court to dispose of the review petitions expeditiously  and
preferably within a period of one month from the date  of  production  of  a
copy of this order by either side before the High Court.
9.    We record the submission made by the learned counsel for  the  parties
that they will cooperate with the High Court  for  disposal  of  the  review
petitions and will not ask for any adjournment when the matters  are  posted
before the High Court.
10.   Status  quo,  as  on  today,  shall  be  maintained  till  the  review
petitions are disposed of.
11.   The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
12.   We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits  of
the matters.
13.   Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
14.   There shall be no orders as to costs.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [A.M. KHANWILKAR]
      NEW DELHI;
      FEBRUARY 03, 2017.