JUDGMENT :

KAMAL KHATA, J.

1. The Petitioner seeks a review of the order dated 30th August, 2022, to permit the Petitioner to put a gate and barbed wire fencing on that portion of the area on which the sub-division marking is done by the City Survey office pursuant to the aforestated order.

2. As per the order dated 30th August, 2022 ( “the order” for short), both petitioner and the respondent No. 3 independently applied to the City Survey Office for sub-division of the jointly owned land bearing CTS No. 783(pt). Thereafter correspondence was exchanged between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 to permit the Petitioner to lay PNG pipeline and erect a gate with barbed fencing on that part of the land abutting V.N. Purav Road coming to their share as per the sub-division carried out by the City Survey Office. Though the letter dated 29th March, 2023, was admittedly received by the respondent No. 3, the Petitioners’ have not received any revert.

3. Mr. Vashi learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that pursuant to the subdivision of the land, both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 are entitled to use and enjoy the land coming to their share. It is submitted that presently there is a wicked gate abutting V.N. Purav Road which must be reduced in size to identify the Petitioners’ portion of the subdivided land. He on instructions stated that though in the review petition the sub-division is stated to be unacceptable, the Petitioners agree to accept the sub-division as carried out by the City Survey Office.

4. The learned Counsel submitted that the review petition was delayed by 223 days since respondent No. 3 had shown reluctance to comply with the implied order on 24th March, 2023 and therefore seeks condonation.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgments in the case of Speed Ways Picture Pvt. Ltd. & anr. v/s. Union of India and anr. (1996) 6 SCC 705 more particularly paragraphs 5 & 6, Shivdeo Singh and ors. v/s. State of Punjab & ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909 more particularly paragraphs 3 to 8, and Chhajju Ram v/s. Neki and ors., AIR 1922 PC 112 more particularly paragraphs 10 to 12, in support of his contentions.

6. Mr. Khandeparkar learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposed the Review Petition on the ground of maintainability, stating that the prayers sought in the Petition enlarge the scope of the review and lead to modification of the order which is not permissible in review. He submitted that the Petitioner has failed to point out any error in the order and therefore, no case is made out for review of the order.

7. He vehemently urged that the Petitioner is not entitled to get possession of land, in the garb of a review of an order in the Writ Petition, since the order does not grant possession specifically. He indicated that there was no prayer for possession of the jointly owned land, even in the main petition. He further indicated that the review petition itself avers that the Petitioners were not agreeable with the sub-division carried out by the City Survey Office and the acceptance to the sub-division is only accepted during arguments. He submitted that putting up the gate and the barbed wire fencing would mean demarcating the property (as per the sub-division presently carried out) and removing the wall which was there on the property since the past 50 years. He submitted that such an action is modification of an order and cannot be sought through a review petition. He submitted that a consent decree could be modified only by consent of both parties.

8. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgments in the case of Compack Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Beant Singh, (2021) 3 SCC 702 more particularly paragraphs 19 to 21, and S. Madhusudhan Reddy v/s. V. Narayana Reddy and ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034 and more particularly paragraphs 18 to 24, in support of his aforesaid contention.

Conclusion:

9. We have heard both counsel and perused the records. The present review is not before t