NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday dismissed a review application to its earlier order dated September 20, 2022 by dismissing an intervention application on the question of ownership of Qutub Minar. The applicant has failed to show any sufficient ground for review of the order, it stated.The court of additional district judge Dinesh Kumar said, “This court cannot again review the said order just to find out whether there is another view possible or not. I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to show any sufficient ground for review of the order dated 20.09.2022. The application is without merits.”The court was hearing the plea of Kunwar Mahender Dhwaj Pratap Singh, who claimed he was an heir of the erstwhile ruler of the ‘United Province of Agra’ and the owner of land parcels in several cities in and around Delhi, including the property of Qutub Minar.On September 20, Singh’s intervention application claiming ownership to the monument and over vast areas, including South Delhi, was dismissed by the court. Singh filed a review petition against the dismissal.“Only because the applicant did not find that observation of the court in his favour is not a ground for review of the order. The court has already held that the applicant is neither a necessary nor proper party,” the court stated.The court also noted that only because the Union of India and Archaeological Survey of India had allegedly filed “evasive replies” and did not disclose the status of the applicant in their replies cannot be a ground to review the order as the order of the court was not based only on the reply of the Union of India or the appellants.“The order was passed after considering the submission of the applicant which was considered to be not sufficient to implead him as a party in the present appeal. Similarly, the other grounds argued by the learned counsel for the applicant are also not able to show any ground where there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the said order,” said the court.It further observed that the power of review can be used by a court if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. “When a party is aggrieved by an order or judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, the only remedy available is to question the said order in the appeal and a review application cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise,” the court asserted.
Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/court-throws-out-review-plea-on-qutub-ownership/articleshow/96485093.cms