TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essal of the grievance of the petitioner/applicant. 3. That though the appeal was filed in time but the same was filed in a wrong Court. 4. That delay in filing the present Revision Petition is not attributed to the petitioner/applicant but due to filing of the wrong appeal filed by the previous Counsel of the petitioner/applicant. 5. That the petitioner/applicant should not suffer for mistake of his Counsel and the petitioner should be heard on merit. 2. The Appeal appears to have been filed on 16.3.2000 and was dismissed on 9.5.2001. Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act is explicit in terms, and states that No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and decree but instead of pursuing the correct remedy of filing the revision petition had filed appeal which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi with liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the law. He has also contended that the petitioner has not taken any specific objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit under the Specific Relief Act. He has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief, 1963, which deals with suit by person dispossessed without his consent of immovable property. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional District Judge, Delhi wherein it has been contended that the appeal was filed under bona fide belief as the same was maintainable and no sooner he realised his bona fide mistake, the said appeal was withdrawn from the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi with liberty to take appropriate proceedings under the law. 5. The observations contained in Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors., do not apply to the facts of the present case since the Revisionist is not the State but a private individual. 6. It is a uniform practice that in the event that a particular Bench does not agree with the view of a Coordinate Bench, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench. This has not been done in Krish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
