SHETHNA, J. - (1.) MAIN Writ Petition No. 1129/99 was dismissed by me on 31. 8. 99. The said order was initially challenged by the petitioner before the Division Bench of this Court by way of special appeal filed on 8. 10. 1999 as stated at the Bar by the learned counsel Shri Goyal for the petitioner. The same was withdrawn by Shri N. K. Goyal from the Division Bench on 17. 12. 1999 as he wanted to approach this Court by way of review. While withdrawing the special appeal, a request was made that appropriate direction may be given for condonation of delay for filing the review petition to which the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench observed that appellant (present petitioner) may file appropriate application alongwith the review application which shall be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY, this review petition was filed on 7. 1. 2000 which is barred by period of limitation by 99 days as calculated by the Office of this Court. On merits the submission of Mr. Goyal was that the period of limitation of one year has been prescribed by the Division Bench of this court in Anandi Lal's case (1) and on merits the facts of this case were different from writ petition no. 478/98 which was dismissed by me on 31. 8. 99 itself. In the recent Full Bench judgment of this Court it has been held that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Anandi Lal's case is no more a good law, therefore, on merits the petitioner has no case. In the order dated 31. 8. 99 passed in writ petition no. 1129/99, which is sought to be reviewed, I have clearly mentioned the facts and then came to the conclusion that this petition was required to be dismissed in view of the fact that almost identical writ petition no. 478/98 was dismissed by me on that very day i. e. 31. 8. 99. Thus, on merits also it has no substance. However, an attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to argue the matter as if I am sitting in appeal over my own judgment, which is not permissible under the law. As stated earlier, this review petition is barred by period of limitation by 99 days. Thus, there is a gross delay in filing the review petition for which an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. It was conceded by the learned counsel Shri Goyal that a wrong statement has been made in para 1 of the said application that the special appeal was decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 17. 12. 1999 with the direction that petitioner should file review petition before the learned Single Judge. A brief order was passed by the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench on 17. 12. 1999 in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 7326/99, which I would like to reproduce, which is as under: " 17. 12. 99 Hon'ble N. N. MATHUR & S. C. MITAL, JJ. Mr. N. K. Goyal, for Appellant Mr. C. L. Jain, for Respondents Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Singhvi seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with a view to approach the learned Single Judge for review. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that an appropriate direction may be given for condonation of delay for filing the review application. The appellant may file an appropriate application alongwith review application which shall be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law. " From the above order it is clear that the Division Bench has never directed the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the appeal with a view to file review petition with a request to issue suitable directions to the learned Single Judge for condonation of delay in filing the review petition late to which the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench have stated that the appellant (present petitioner) may file appropriate application alongwith the review petition which shall be considered and decided by the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.
(3.) IF, there was any error apparent on the face of record, then in my considered opinion the petitioner should have immediately file review petition before this Court within the period of limitation, but instead of filing review petition the petitioner thought it fit to file special appeal before the Division Bench and lateron withdrew the special appeal for the purpose of filing review petition. In case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (2) it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the court is bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in the Court. It cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. It has been further held that if the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. Coming to the averments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, no cause much less sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay of 99 days. ;