1. These two review petitions have been filed seeking review of the orders passed by this Court in C.R.No.118 of 1982 and M.A.No. 28 of 1982.

2. Both the civil revision and the miscellaneous appeal arose out of a common order allowing miscellaneous case preferred by opposite part no.1 under Order 21 Rule 99 of Civil Procedure Code and directing the petitioner-decree holder to re-deliver the possession of the property to the opposite party. While civil revision was dismissed on merit holding that no jurisdictional error was involved, the miscellaneous appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

3. The petitioner preferred SLP (Civil) No. 9512 of 1986 before the Supreme Court. A plea appears to have been taken to the effect that the dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable was not correct as appeal against Order passed on application under Order 21 Rule 99 of the Code lay under Order 21 Rule 103. The plea apparently found favour with their Lordships who by order dated 4.11.86 while disposing of the SLP gave liberty to the petitioner to file review petition. These review petitions have accordingly been filed.

4. A preliminary objection has been taken to the maintainablility o