P.S. Teji, J.
C.M. 40660/2017 (Exemption)
1. Application is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Review Petition No. 480/2017 & C.M. 40661/2017 (Stay)
2. The present review petition has been filed by the appellant of the judgment passed by this Court on 27.10.2017. The review petition along with stay application came up for hearing on 10.11.2017 when learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he wishes to amend the grounds of the review and sought an adjournment. The matter was adjourned to 12.01.2018. On 24.11.2017, the matter was taken up on moving an application for early hearing. An application bearing CM No. 42678/2017 was moved for amendment in the review petition. The amendment sought was allowed. The early hearing application was also allowed and the matter was adjourned for today.
3. The ground taken in the review petition are that there was material concealment of facts and documents by the respondent no. 1 as in his plaint at the time of filing the suit, neither the respondent no. 1 mentioned about the initial allotment in the name of sister-Sneh Lata nor produced any document to that effect. Further grounds taken are that Benami was never an issue between the parties; there was no cause of action for the respondent no. 1 to file the suit for recovery of possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction; error apparent that the bills were Marked as it is settled law that only exhibited bills can be read in evidence and not the marked one; that a serious cloud was raised by the appellant on the title of the respondent no. 1; that the respondent no. 1 has miserably failed to show any source of income during the period of acquiring of the property and raising the construction; that in 1980 and 1982, the respondent no. 1 had written to the DDA to transfer the suit property in the name of the mother; the respondent no. 1 never admitted the fact of initial allotment of property in the name of his sister-Sneh Lata; respondent no. 1 throughout the suit concealed the most relevant documents; and that the suit was barred by limitation and the same submissions were made orally.
4. The facts in brief are that a suit for possession, recovery, mesne profits and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 on the basis of perpetual lease deed dated 31.01.1966 Ex. PW1/A, issued by the President of India in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court passed the decree for possession.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, an appeal bearing RFA No. 400/2010 was filed by the defendant/appellant which was heard at length. Agreed with the conclusion drawn by the Court below, relying upon the lease deed Ex. PW1/A executed in favour of the plaintiff, this Court vide judgment dated 27.10.2017 dismissed the appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
7. So far as the contention regarding marked documents is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that marked documents can always be looked into by the Court.
8. Admitted position is that the case of the respondent no. 1 is not that the perpetual lease deed in favour of the plaintiff was Benami transaction. The other submission that the perpetual lease deed Ex. PW1/A is under the cloud, was not acceptable as after the issuance of lease deed the same is valid as on today also. More the reason that the points urged are the same which were before the trial court as well as before the appellate Court, which have already been considered.
9. The decision in the appeal is based upon the re-appraisal of the evidence and material before the trial court and this Court also culminates into the same view with regard to entitlement of the possession in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1. This Court concurred with the finding of the trial court in the appeal on the question of fact and the law referred and the same have already been dealt with as no cloud has been established on the title after the issuance of perpetual lease deed Ex. PW1/A. As a result, the judgment of the trial Court was upheld. Nothing fresh has been urged in the review petition. There is no discovery of new fact or evidence. Neither there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and nor any other sufficient reason has been given for filing the present review petition.
10. Keeping in view the judgment delivered by the trial court and by this Court, there is no ground which calls for review of the judgment of the appellate Court. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
11. Accordingly, CM No. 40661/2017 is also disposed of.
12. Dasti.