Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16533 of 2020 Petitioner :- Samar Shahi @ Samar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nisheeth Yadav,Sr. Advocate Sri C.B. Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
In Re : Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. Nil of 2020.
The delay condonation application is supported by an affidavit.
In view of the explanation offered in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the review application is condoned.
In Re : Civil Misc. Review Application No.60 of 2021 Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava for the review- applicant; Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh for the respondents 1 to 3; and perused the record.
By this review application, the applicant has sought review of the order dated 19th October, 2020 passed by a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. and Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. in Writ C No.16533 of 2020.
As Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J. has since demitted office, this review application has been nominated to this Bench.
The writ petition was filed by review-applicant for direction upon the Registrar to register the sale deed.
Upon finding that there was a status quo order passed in First Appeal (Defective) No.306 of 2019 operating against one of the parties, the writ petition was disposed off with liberty to seek clarification with regard to the import of the status quo order.
Learned counsel for the review-applicant submitted that the interim order passed in First Appeal (Defective) No.306 of 2019 only directs maintenance of status-quo in respect of possession and does not put a restraint on execution of a sale deed therefore there were no fetters on the power of the Registrar to register the sale deed.
Learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to the order dated 19th October, 2020 to demonstrate that the aforesaid argument was considered but not accepted by the Court.
In view of the above, keeping in mind that a review cannot be utilised as a tool to re-hear the matter, we are of the view that the review application is liable to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021. Rks.