$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.R.P. 211/2024 SHAUKAT ALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. V. K. Mishra, Adv. versus SMT. KAILASH RANI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R % 28.02.2025 CM APPL. 12077/2025 (exemption from filing certified copy of the order dated 13.01.2025) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. REVIEW PET. 106/2025 3. By the present review petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 13.01.2025, passed by this Court. 4. It is stated that there is an error apparent on record in as much as this Court premised the order on the basis that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) was filed by the defendants. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit on its own without there being any application filed by the defendants. 5. The contention of the petitioner is correct. The learned Trial Court had heard the matter on maintainability and dismissed the suit, by applying the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, holding that the suit was filed after six months from the alleged date of dispossession. 6. This Court dismissed the present revision petition by noting that the impugned order was passed on an application filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. 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 04/03/2025 at 12:12:19 7. The same is an inadvertent error and is taken note of. However, the order was passed on merits. This Court held that the petitioner has failed to prove that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. 8. It was held that the learned Trial Court rightly formed an opinion that the date of dispossession would be taken as 27.03.2023 and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 9. The error, as pointed out, has crept in the order inadvertently, however, in the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be a ground for review of the order when the same has been passed after considering the merits of the case. 10. Concededly, the learned Trial Court can pass an order applying the principles of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC either on its own or on an application being filed by the defendant. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the plaintiff has categorically pleaded that the cause of action lastly arose on 29.04.2024, and therefore, the suit filed in the month of May 2024 was within the period of limitation. 12. The averment of the plaintiff in relation to the date of dispossession was duly noted by this Court in the order under review. Therefore, the same cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of record so as to warrant any interference in review proceedings. The petitioner cannot be allowed to reagitate and reargue the matter in the present proceedings. 13. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present review petition. 14. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. AMIT MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 28, 2025 / ‘KDK’ 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 04/03/2025 at 12:12:19