- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. By means of the present review petition, under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C. P. C. read with the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India the judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Agrawal, dated 25-11- 1988, as he then was, is sought to be reviewed.
(2.) THE aforesaid application came up before me on 23-10-1990. THE judgment against which the review was being sought, was referred to before a larger Bench by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. D. Agrawala. In the aforesaid circumstances, I directed that this review petition may also be listed before the Division Bench for decision. A Division Bench of this Court has returned the review petition for decision afresh, observing that the law laid down by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Agrawal in the writ petition does not lay down the correct law. Since the learned counsel for the opposite party in the petition, namely, Smt. Indra Pathak, who was petitioner in writ petition No. 16968 of 1988 submitted that several other questions in the alternative are involved for consideration in the present review petition, the Division Banch has remitted back the review petition before me. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The facts in short are that one Sri Paramarath Prakash was the pro prietor of the premises in dispute. He filed a suit for eviction of Smt. Indira Pathak from the premises in dispute, alleging therein that since the premises was completed on 1-4-1973 and the suit has been filed within 10 years of the construction of the building i. e. on 18-9-1981, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. The trial court decreed the suit on 21-7-1984. The defendant Smt. Indra Pathak, aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, filed a revision which was allowed on 18-5-1987. The revisional court took the view that since during the pendency of the suit 10 years have lapsed, so the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 making them applicable to the building and the decree passed against the plaintiff was liable to ba set aside, as the defendant has complied with the provisions of Section 39 of U P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff filed a review application. The plaintiff's review application was allowed on 19-8-1988, holding that the view taken earlier by the rovisional court suffers from patent error of law, as it is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court that if the suit has been filed within 10 years from the date of the completion of the building, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be attracted in respect of the said building merely on the ground that the suit remained pending after 10 years of its completion. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the revisional court, reviewing its earlier order, the defendant Smt. Indra Pathak filed a writ petition in-this Court being writ petition No. 16968 of 1988. The learned Single Judge of this Court, as he then was, allowed the writ petition, taking a view that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will be applicable even to the cases where a period of 10 years have lapsed during the pendency of the suit or appeal. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present review petition has been filed.
(3.) IN a Division Bench of this Court, in writ petition No. 4692 of 1984, Ram Prakash v. III Additional District Judge, the correctness of the judgment given by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Agrawal came for consideration since a contrary view was taken by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 4692 of 1984. The Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, namely, Ram Prakash v. III Additional District Judge, Agra, writ petition No. 4692 of 1984, decided on 18-4-1994 held that the view taken in writ petition No. 16968 of 1988 does not lay down the law correctly. The Division Bench held that it is well settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if a suit is filed within 10 years of the completion of the building, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be attracted to such building even though the period of 10 years has lapsed during the pendency of the suit or appeal. Learned counsel for the opposite party, the original petitioner, Sri B. D. Maodhyan has mainly contended that if a higher court or superior court has taken a different view of law than taken in the impugned judgment, ihe judgment should not be allowed to be reviewed otherwise it will create a situation where there will be no finality of the decisions of the parties and this will upset the entire fabric of the judicial structure.;