Abhilasha Kumari, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Manav A. Mehta, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. Dipen Desai, learned advocate, waives for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Dhaval G. Nanavati, learned advocate, waives for respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

2. The present application has been preferred for the review and/or recall of the order dated 19.12.2013, passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 2825 of 2013, which had been preferred by respondents Nos. 1-3 herein, for the recall of the order dated 18.01.2013, passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 11883 of 2012 and to hear the said petition on merits.

3. The chequered history of the litigation between the parties, which emerges from the record and has been elaborated by learned counsel for the respective parties, necessitates the narration of some relevant background facts, in order to place the present application in its proper perspective.

4. The applicants and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are heirs of deceased Rambhai Patel, who died in 1994. Three legal heirs, being two sons and the widow of the deceased are not parties to the present litigation. There has been extensive litigation in the Civil Court between the parties, the documents regarding which have been placed on record. The applicants are daughters of deceased Rambhai. According to respondents Nos. 1-3, the applicants (sisters) released their shares in the properties of deceased Rambhai in favour of the three brothers, that is, respondent No. 1, Pravinbhai Patel and Hasmukhbhai Patel. There was an agreement between the brothers that was challenged by Manguben (widow of the deceased), who passed away during the pendency of the suit, as well as by the applicants, by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 399 of 1999.

5. In the said suit, an application was filed at Exhibit 5, for the grant of an interim injunction, (i) restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging or gifting the land; (ii) creating third party rights; (iii) using the land for any other use except as a godown; (iv) changing the use of land as well as the building and (v) maintaining status-quo in respect of the land in question.

6. Initially, an ex parte order was passed by the Trial Court, granting all the above prayers. However, after bi-parte hearing, the Trial Court limited the ex parte injunction by an order dated 08.05.2000, confining it only to an injunction prohibiting the defendants (respondents Nos. 1-3 herein) from selling and transferring the land in question till the final disposal of the suit. The other, wider, prayers were not granted. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3, being aggrieved by the above order of the Trial Court restraining them from transferring or selling the land, preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 39 of 2000 before the District Court. However, the applicants did not choose to challenge that part of the order, whereby the other prayers sought by them had been rejected. The appeal preferred by respondents Nos. 1-3 herein was allowed by the District Court, Ahmedabad, by an order dated 24.02.2006. The order of the Trial Court restraining them from transferring or selling the land in question, was set aside.

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Court, the applicants herein filed Special Civil Application No. 6111 of 2006, before this Court, seeking the following prayers:-

"(A) The Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure: 'A' hereto; and consequently restoring the order passed by the Trial Court at Annexure: 'D' hereto;

... ... ..."

8. Apart from praying for the restoration of the order dated 08.05.2000 of the Trial Court, restraining respondents Nos. 1-3 from selling or transferring the property, no other relief was sought by the applicants.

9. During the hearing of Special Civil Application No. 6111 of 2006, respondents Nos. 1-3 agreed not