Shri Ghanshyam Dogra v. Ms. Patricia Francis (since deceased)

Shri Ghanshyam Dogra S/o Shri Babu Ram R/o Merle Cottage, P.O. Clement Town Dehradun …………..…Review applicant Versus

Ms. Patricia Francis (since deceased) D/o Late Mr. L.V. Francis R/o Merle Cottage, P.O. Clement Town Dehradun. Georgina Chew Phyllis Manuel ……………Revisionist/Respondents Mr. Kailash Pandey, Advocate, with Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate, present for the review applicant. Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate, present for the revisionists. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Review applicant Ghanshyam Dogra has sought review of order dated 06.04.2010, passed by this Court vide Civil Revision no. 50 of 2004, Mrs. Patricia Francis (since deceased) vs. Ghanshyam 2 Dogra, was allowed, and SCC Suit no. 53 of 1990, filed by the land lady was allowed, and the suit was decreed for eviction of the defendant/review applicant, and recovery of arrears of rent from him.

Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length on review application.

Brief facts of the case are that revisionist Patricia Francis (since deceased) claiming herself to be land lady of five rooms of building known as Merle Cottage in Clement Town, Dehradun, sought eviction of the defendant (review applicant), and arrears of recovery of rent after tenancy stood terminated. Said SCC suit was filed in the year 1990. Review applicant/defendant contested the suit, and it could be decided only in the year 2004. Aggrieved by order dated 27.07.2004, passed by Judge, Small Court/District Judge, in SCC suit no. 53 of 1990, revision was filed under section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, by the land lady before this Court. After hearing the parties vide order dated 06.04.2010, the revision was allowed, and the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by said order passed by this Court defendant Ghanshyam Dogra filed Special Leave to Appeal (civil) no. 17086 of 2010, 3 before the Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 05.08.2011, and the order dated

06.04.2010, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 50 of 2004, stood affirmed (whereafter this review application is filed).

Learned counsel for the review applicant argued before this Court that Patricia Francis was not the land lady. He also pleaded that reply of notice sent on behalf of land lady was wrongly read in evidence by this Court. In this connection, attention of this Court is drawn to the statements of witnesses recorded before the trial court. It is also contended that non examination of plaintiff who was living in England, was fatal to the case.

All the above pleas raised before this Court by the review applicant which requires reappreciation of evidence, is beyond scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any error apparent on the fact of the record, which requires exercise of review jurisdiction. 4