S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -Sri Dharam Pal Singh, advocate has appeared on behalf of the review applicant (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") and has advanced his submissions on behalf of the applicant. He has been heard at length. Sri A. B. Saran has appeared for the opposite party-appellant.
(2.) THIS appeal was decided by this Court by a detailed judgment dated 23.3.2006 whereby it was allowed to the extent the Hon'ble single Judge while dismissing the contempt application of the respondent in this appeal has directed that the appellants shall not be permitted to raise the question of limitation in filing of execution application, if any, before the concerned court and thereby depriving them of their right of raising objection with respect to limitation, if any, in execution proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since this appeal was numbered as 429 of 2007 (defective) therefore, without removing the said defect, the same could not have been allowed by this Court in view of Chapter XI, Rule 13 of the High Court Rules. He further contended that since the defect was not removed, the appeal ought to have been rejected on this very ground and therefore, the judgment dated 23.3.2006 whereby we have allowed the appeal deserves to be recalled. In our view, the submission is thoroughly misconceived. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the only defect noticed by the stamp reporter while scrutinising memo of appeal is 'affidavit of service' which was not there when the appeal was placed for reporting, i.e., 5.9.1997. Subsequently, the said defect was removed by the appellant by filing an 'affidavit of service' and removal of the said defect has been endorsed on the memo of appeal in the following words of the stamp reporter on 6.9.1997 : "Duly stamped affidavit of service has now been filed." Limitation to file appeal was upto 6.9.1997 and the appeal was actually presented before the Additional Registrar on 6.9.1997. Learned counsel for the applicant could not show any defect in the appeal on account whereof he could have placed reliance on Chapter XI, Rule 13 of High Court Rules except the fact that the special appeal was actually numbered as 429 of 1997 (Defective) and was not given a regular number. It may be a mistake on the part of the Registry by not providing regular number to the aforesaid appeal since the only defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter in its report dated 5.9.1997 was removed on 6.9.1997 but that itself would not be a reason to attract Chapter XI, Rule 13 of the High Court Rules unless it is found that the appeal was actually defective for one or the other reason and such defect was not removed by the appellant. For the mere fact that the Registry could not give a regular number to this appeal and continued to show its number as defective, that by itself would not confer any right upon the review applicant to contend that the appeal deserved to be dismissed under Chapter XI, Rule 9 of the Rules of the Court since it was a defective appeal and the defect was not removed though as a matter of fact, there was no defect on account of which it could be said to be defective on the date when the appeal was heard and decided finally. On the contrary, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that so far as the issues which has been decided by the Court vide judgment dated 23.3.2006, he could not find any error therein and, therefore, is not in a position to say anything about the judgment on merits.
(3.) NO other point was argued. In view of above, the review application is dismissed.;