JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J. :- Special leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the contesting parties finally in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is being finally disposed of by this judgment.

2. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution involves a short question about the review jurisdiction of the High Court in setting aside the earlier decision of the High Court in Second Appeal No.569 of 1973. A few relevant facts leading up to this appeal are required to be noticed at the outset. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a title suit No. 67 of 1970 in the second Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Midnapore in West Bengal. In that suit, the appellant- plaintiff claimed partition and separate possession of two plots, namely , C.S.Plots Nos.73 and 74. Her case was that her husband Dr. Umaprasanna Bhanja and respondent-defendants husband Dr.Phanindra Nath Choudhury were close friends, that by two registered documents they had purchased the aforesaid two plots and that the plaintiff-appellant became entitled to the northern halves of the two plots totalling. 10 decimals. Her case is that the parties dug a well in the middle portion of the respective plots. It was further contended that the defendant-respondent in disregard of the plaintiff-appellants interests, started construction of some buildings, encroaching upon her area. Consequently, the aforesaid suit was filed claiming partition of two plots by metes and bounds. The plaintiff- appellant alternatively prayed for declaration of title and sought permanent injunction in respect of C.S. Plots Nos.73 and 74.

3. The learned trial Judge by his Judgment and decree dated 15th March,1971, held that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to partition of C.S.Plots No.73 and so far as C. S. Plot No. 74 was concerned the appellant was held entitled to a decree of declaration of title in respect of specific 5 decimals of land and permanent injunction against the defendant to that extent.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondent-defendant preferred Title Appeal No. 322 of 1971, while the appellant filed cross-objections against dismissal of her suit for partition of C.S.Plot No.74. The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 29th June, 1972, directed that the appellant would get a declaration of title, confirmation of possession and injunction, but so far as the appellants prayer for partition of C.S.Plot No.74 was concerned, the appellate Court confirmed the learned Subordinate Judges judgment.

5. The appellant being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, preferred a Second Appeal to the High Court of Calcutta, being Appeal from Appellate Decree No.569 of 1973. The Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 3rd August, 1978, allowed the Second Appeal and held that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to partition of C.S.Plot No.74 also. The respondent-defendant being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 3rd August, 1978, filed a Review Petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court. The Review Petition was heard on 5th September, 1984 by another Division Bench of the High Court, and was partly allowed so far as the C.S. Plot No.74 was concerned. It set side the decree for partition as granted by the earlier Division Bench in Second Appeal and directed that the Second Appeal be reheard so far as the question of partition of C. S. Plot No. 74 was concerned. The Review Petition was, however, dismissed so far as the partition decree for C. S. Plot No.73 as passed by the trial Court and as affirmed by the High Court, went. Thereafter, by a later order dated 8th July, 1986, Second Appeal No. 569 of 1973 was ordered to be dismissed in respect of C.S.Plot No.74. It is this decision of the latter Division Bench of the High Court dismissing Second Appeal of the appell