A short and an important question a raises in this review petition is: whether Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked to review the judgment by a person who is not a party either in the suit or in the appeal.

2. One Anjanappa filed the suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule property in O.S. No. 332 of 1971, which was later renumbered as O.S. No. 1318 of 1980. The suit property is measuring 4 acres 14 guntas of dry land in Sy. No. 39/4 of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk along with an existing tiled roof house. A purchaser of the property had also filed a suit in O.S. No. 177 of 1973, which was later renumbered as O.S. No. 473 of 1981 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for the relief of declaration and for possession in respect of the property mentioned in the suit. These two suits were clubbed together and a common judgment was passed. The suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1318 of 1980 was dismissed and the suit filed by the 4th defendant who had purchased a portion of the property in O.S. No.4 73 of 1991 was decreed. Against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 1318 of 1980, the unsuccessful plaintiff filed an appeal in R.F.A. No. 606 of 1989. Against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 473 of 1981, RF.A. No. 324 of 1990 was filed. The appeal filed by legal heirs of Anjanappa was allowed on 24th November, 1998 by a learned Judge of this Court and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside. A preliminary decree was passed declaring that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled for half share in the suit property.

3. The present review petitioners Smt. C.P. Bharathi and Sri Sathyanarayana, who were not parties either in the suit or in the appeal have filed this review petition under Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure requesting this Court to review the order dated 24-11-1999 passed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 606 of 1989 and to give an opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case properly. Along with this review petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed to condone the delay of 2492 days in filing the review petition. An application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is also filed seeking permission to prosecute the review petition.

4. Before considering the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I have heard the Counsel for the parties in regard to the right of the petitioners to maintain the review petition.

5. According to Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, considering the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any aggrieved person can maintain a review petition to review the judgment passed by this Court. He further relied upon Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his arguments, he has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivdeo Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others and Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India. Relying upon these judgments, Mr. Shankar contends that the petitioners being aggrieved persons, even though they were not parties either before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court, can maintain an application for review of the judgment. Therefore, he requests this Court to set aside the judgment in order to given an opportunity to the petitioners to establish their rights, contending that the judgment passed by this Court in regular first appeal would directly affect the interest of the petitioners.

6. Per contra Mr. C.B. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the 1st respondent contends that Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure has to be read along with Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, scope of Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure is very limited and can be invoked by a person; against whom a decree or order is passed. Theref