The appellant in Civil Appeal No.4656 of 1999 was the Delhi Administration while the appellant in CA No.4657 of 1999 was Delhi Development Authority.
The companynsel was informed by the Registry that since appeal had been disposed of after hearing the companynsel for the parties, numberapplication for re hearing would lie and, if he so advised, companyld file a review petition under the Rules.
Gurdip Singh Uban, it may be numbered had filed IA Nos.4 5 in spite of dismissal of his review petition on 24.11.1999.
The order of the Registrar is reported in Sone Lal and others State of Uttar Pradesh 1982 2 SCC 398.
The above mentioned order of the Registrar was later endorsed by this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others 2000 7 SCC In that case Civil Appeal Nos.4656 57 of 1999 were allowed by a two Judge Bench Judgment of this Court reported in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban 1999 7 SCC 44 and the appeals of Delhi Administration and Delhi Development Authority were allowed.
Another Review Petition No.21 of 2000 filed by another person was number listed on that date.
IA Nos.4 5 were listed before the Court and a preliminary objection was raised stating that the applications companyched as applications for clarification, modification or for recall companyld number be entertained once the review petitions filed by the applicant were dismissed.
After the appeals were allowed by this Court on 20.8.1999, Review Petition Nos.1402 03 of 1999 were filed in the two appeals by Gurdip Singh Uban and they were dismissed in circulation by a reasoned order on 24.11.1999.
Consequently, the application was number registered.
