$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5598/2025 & REVIEW PET. 494/2025 PREETI JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamran Malik, Mr. Javed Hasan and Mr. Mohammad Saquib, Advs. Email: itsmekamran@gmail.com versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sagar Kumar, SC for R-1/MCD Mob: 7054160914 Email: mrsagarkumar@hotmail.com Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC-MCD with Mr. Vishal Ji, Advocates (M:9911991166) Mr. K.K. Rohatgi, Adv. for R-3 Mob: 9810139860 Email: kkrohatgi1995@yahoo.com Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, SPC for UOI with Ms. Shweta Singh, Adv. Mob: 9810031680 Email: solicitor6@gmail.com CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA O R D E R % 23.09.2025 REVIEW PET. 494/2025 1. The present review petition has been filed by respondent no. 3 seeking review of the order dated 17th September, 2025. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2025 at 12:37:28 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, i.e. review petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 did not receive the copy of the application being CM APPL. 58944/2025, which was considered at the time of passing the order dated 17th September, 2025. 3. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 was also not in receipt of the Status Report dated 08th August, 2025 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), on the basis of which, the said order dated 17th September, 2025 has been passed by the Court. On account of the said fact, respondent no. 3 was unable to put in her appearance, when the matter was listed on 17th September, 2025. 4. It is further submitted that earlier there was a settlement between the parties, as recorded in the order dated 10th March, 2016 in CM(M) 636/2014 and details of which have been given in Para 10 of the present application. However, the petitioner did not fulfill the obligations in terms of the settlement. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner has not allowed respondent no. 3 to repair and to operate the common lift. Further, the petitioner has also not allowed respondent no. 3 to carry out further construction on the terrace of the property. 5. Thus, the present review petition has been filed praying that hearing be granted to the respondent no. 3, as she could not appear on 17th September, 2025, on account of the reasons, as stated hereinabove. 6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2. 7. Let reply be filed by the non-applicants, within a period of two weeks. 8. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of one week, thereafter. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2025 at 12:37:28 9. In the meanwhile, the operation of the directions, as given in the order dated 17th September, 2025, shall remain stayed. 10. Re-notify on 18th November, 2025. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2025/SK This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/09/2025 at 12:37:28