Prem Prakash Oberoi Vs. Dda

.....annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established......be allowed even if that decision is erroneous.2. order 47 rule 1 cpc spells out the circumstances under which review application can be preferred. one of the grounds in the discovery of new and important matter which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time of hearing. in the instant case, notification dated 21.3.2003 de-notifying the area was passed by the land and building department and dda would be in the know of such a notification. it was, thereforee, rather the duty of dda to point out this notification. when this fact/evidence is not known to the petitioner and after he got knowledge thereof, he filed review petition on that basis. the tribunal should have entertained the review application as the ground on which the review was made was squarely covered by the provisions of order 47 rule 1 cpc. it was not a case of erroneous decision on the basis of material on record but new material, substantial in nature and having bearing on the matter, which was not before the court earlier was brought to the notice of the court. order dated 2.6.2003 cannot be sustained and is, thereforee, set aside. matter is remitted back to the learned tribunal for deciding the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid notification. parties may appear before the tribunal on 29.7.2003.3. since during the pendency of the appeal before the tribunal, there was a stay of demolition and sealing of the property in question. it is directed that till the disposal of the petition, the respondent shall not take any action of demolition or sealing of the property.