Vinod Goel JUDGMENT
Vinod Goel, J.
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 15th May 2017 passed in the RFA No. 394/2017. This petition is one of the classic examples of how the judicial process is being misused by unscrupulous litigants.
2. The Petitioner herein is the son of the Respondents. The Petitioner is 52 years of age and thus the Respondents must be more than 75 years of age. The suit of the respondents for possession against the petitioner in respect of their property consisting of two rooms, latrine, bathroom and balcony on the first floor in the premises No. 64/1, Shakar Pur Khas, Delhi-110092, was decreed vide judgment dated 22.03.2011. The petitioner was restrained from transferring any portion or parting with any portion of the suit premises and from selling, transferring or delivering the possession to any third party or creating any third party interest. The petitioner herein was also directed to pay mesne profit @ Rs. 4,400/- per month to the respondents w.e.f. 30.11.2007 till he delivers the possession of the property to the respondents. It was also directed that along with that the petitioner shall pay pendente lite and future interest @9% per annum on decretal amount till the realization of the decretal amount and possession is handed over to the respondents.
3. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the judgement and decree of the trial court challenged the impugned judgment and decree by RFA No. 355/2011 which was dismissed in default by this court on 21.11.2013. The Petitioner thereafter filed CM No. 932/2014 for restoration of the RFA No. 355/2011, which was considered by this Court on 22.04.2014. It is important to note that during hearing of the aforesaid CM, it was pointed out that there was a settlement between the parties before the Executing Court in execution No. 13/14. The Executing Court vide order dated 21.03.2014 recorded that the Petitioner herein had agreed to vacate the suit property on or before 01.10.2014 and had further made a part payment of Rs. 60,000/- towards the decretal amount and the Petitioner had undertaken to pay the balance decretal amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- in terms of the settlement. This court had taken on record the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Executing Court and accordingly CM No. 932/2014 for restoration of RFA No. 355/2011 was disposed of on 22.04.2014
4. Subsequently, the Petitioner herein filed CM No. 34856/2016 in RFA 355/2011 to recall order dated 22.04.2014 pleading that there was no lawful agreement between the parties. This CM was dismissed by this court on 23.09.2016.
5. The respondents thereafter had filed an application under Section 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for modification of the decree to incorporate the details of the property in question in the decree-sheet and after hearing both the parties, the application of the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed on 22.01.2016. Subsequently the Petitioner filed CM (M) 371/2016 challenging the order dated 22.01.2016. This CM (M) 371/2016 was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.04.2016 by the Petitioner.
6. Despite the order dated 22.01.2016, amended decree was not drawn up by the learned Additional District Judge which led the respondents to move another application before the trial court on 23.12.2016 and the trial court passed the order for preparation of the amended Decree on 04.02.2017 and on that day itself the amended Decree sheet was prepared. After the amended decree sheet was prepared on 04.02.2017, the Petitioner filed RFA No. 394/2017 pleading that the amended decree gives him fresh cause of action to file the appeal, which came to be dismissed vide judgement dated 15.05.2017 by this Court.
7. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 15.05.2017 mainly on the ground:
i. That the RFA No. 355/2011 fil........