9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enor cannot claim any relief or decree for himself in the capacity of an intervenor in the appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C, that being the legal position. It is clear that in M.A No. 1153/1999, the applicant as an intervenor could not claim any relief for himself, accordingly, even if this application is allowed and the appeal proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58 are restored the intervenor cannot get any benefit as he cannot claim any relief for himself. That being so no useful purpose would be served in considering the question of review at the instance of the applicant. Application dismissed. - Rajendra Menon And Anil Sharma, JJ. Shri R.P Agrawal, Senior counsel with Shri Shekhar Sharma, counsel for the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the right of the intervenor was not considered and by contending that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dena Bank v. Bikhabi(2000) 5 SCC 694 is not applied properly. This application for review/recall of the order passed is filed. Shri R.P Agrawal, Senior counsel tried to emphasis by placing reliance on various other judgments that the learned appellate court has committed an error of law in not considering the claim of the applicant/intervenor. It is said that the order is contrary to settled principle of law. 3. Shri V.S Shroti, senior counsel for respondent no. 1 objects with regards to maintainability of this review application mainly on two counts. The first ground is that there is no error apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief for himself based on the right that accrued to him by virtue of the auction conducted in his favour. He could not stake his right to the property by way of intervention, he could only either support or oppose the claim of one of the party. In the capacity of a intervenor he cannot challenge the auction process by contending that he has a right to the property and claim a separate relief for him, keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that at the instance of intervenor no relief could be granted in the appeal proceedings initiated. 5. The applicant herein admittedly was an intervenor in M.A No. 1153/1999 and they were claiming their right to the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
