Petitioners, who possessed similar status relating to C.W.J.C. No.4315 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed instant petition for review of the order dated 24.08.2016 whereby and whereunder the said writ was disposed of directing the learned lower Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction at first instance before proceeding ahead with the trial. It is further evident that aforesaid order dated 24.08.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No.4315 of 2011 was put under challenge in L.P.A. No.1931 of 2016 and the same was disposed of as withdrawn giving liberty to take recourse to appropriate provision of law vide order dated 19.10.2016 and under garb of aforesaid liberty, petitioners have filed instant petition for review.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners have raised manifold argument pin-pointing the deficiency persisting in the order impugned dated 24.08.2016 and in likewise manner, has also submitted that as there happens to be apparent error while dealing with the issue, consequent thereupon, needs to be reviewed, which is found duly acknowledgeable under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule-1, 2 of the C.P.C.

3. The major plank of argument as raised on behalf of petitioners is with regard to non-appreciation of relevant rules in its right perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the order impugned suggest that Rule-18 of 2006 Rules is being quoted below, but same has not been quoted and instead thereof, Paragraph-10 as well as Paragraph-11 of the order impugned is nothing, but repetition of Rule-18 of 2008 Rules. That suggest non-appreciation of 2006 Rules in its right perspective. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that Amended 2008 Rules has been introduced much after filing of the Title Suit by the petitioners whereupon there would not be enforcement of amended Rule of 2008. Therefore, the finding having recorded in the order impugned identifying an alternative remedial procedure would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. On this score, it has also been submitted that as per 2006 Rules D.D.C. has got no role to play, consequent thereupon, removal of petitioners by an order of D.D.C., happens to be wrong, illegal in its entirety and that being so, the aforesaid order rightly been challenged under present forum coupled with passing of appropriate order by the learned lower Court directing the defendant to pay the salary for the period whereunder petitioners discharged their duty.

4. It has also been submitted that there happens to be no bar in entertaining a Title Suit with regard to service matter in terms of Section 9 of the C.P.C., because of the fact that there happens to be no exclusion under 2006 Rules. In the aforesaid legal event, it has been urged that part of the order passed by the learned lower Court allowing the prayer of the petitioners directing the O.Ps./ defendants to pay salary for the period during course of which, petitioners have had discharged their duty, being based upon equity, should be restored, which could only be materialized after allowing prayer of the petitioners. So, submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned is fit to be reviewed.

5. Learned A.C. to G.P. has refuted the submission made on behalf of petitioners and submitted that there happens to be no glaring error visible which could attract and justify the prayer of the petitioners, whereupon instant petition is fit to be dismissed.

6. In Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and others Vs. Central Bank of India Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association and others reported in (2016) 13 SCC 135, it has been observed:—

“12. It is clearly an error on the face of the record inasmuch as no such consequence follows. In fact, the aforesaid quoted portion is directly in conflict with not only the earlier portion of paragraph 34, but the entire conclusion on the issue on which there is