S.U.Khan - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for both the parties on several dates.
(2.) THIS writ petition after hearing both the parties was allowed on 6.12.2006. Thereafter this review petition has been filed on 28.6.2008 alongwith delay condonation application. Review petition has been filed by legal representatives of Mohd. Farooq, who was respondent No. 3 in the writ petition (the only contesting respondent). The ground of delay is that against my judgment dated 6.12.2006, original respondent No. 3, Mohd. Farooq had filed S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3173 of 2007 before the Supreme Court on 12.2.2007, however in the S.L.P., original petitioner Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, who had died on 10.7.1999, was made a respondent. Thereafter, substitution application/ impleadment application was filed, however it was dismissed and S.L.P. was also dismissed on 7.2.2008 by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, review petition was filed before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 8.5.2008. It is also stated that Mohd. Farooq died during pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Only ground taken in the review petition is that original petitioner had died on 10.7.1999 and no substitution application was filed, hence my judgment dated 6.12.2006 is nullity as it is in favour of a dead person. On merit also, the said judgment has been assailed, however during arguments learned counsel for the applicant in review petition could not point out any error in my judgment dated 6.12.2006. He only confined his arguments to the plea of judgment being nullity having been passed in favour of a dead person.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that an application was filed on 25.1.2002 in the writ petition, which was supported by affidavit. Copy of the said application is not on record. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has supplied a duplicate copy of the same. In the affidavit annexed alongwith the said application, it was stated in Para-2 that petitioner died on 10.7.1999 and his legal heirs executed a power of attorney in favour of Smt. Vandana Sharma and Smt. Vandana Sharma on the basis of said power of attorney executed a sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of Nawab Khan (the affidavit is of Nawab Khan). In Para-3, it was stated that Nawab Khan might be impleaded as petitioner after deletion of the name of Surendra Chandra Sharma, the original petitioner. However, in the application, no such prayer was made. Another set of applications was filed on 1/2.4.2004, which is on record. It contains delay condonation application, substitution application and setting aside abatement application. In the substitution application, it was stated that petitioner died on 10.7.1999 leaving behind seven heirs. Prayer was made for substitution of those heirs. The said application was accompanied by delay condonation application. The applications were supported by affidavit of Nawab Khan. It was also stated that as sale deed had been executed on 31.8.2001 by the legal representatives of original petitioner in favour of Nawab Khan, hence they did not take any interest in filing substitution application earlier.;