1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. M.J. Quadir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5 to 13. None appears on call for respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. This application for review under Section 114 CPC is directed against the order dated 19.09.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. (C) No. 1345/2017 in RFA 63/2016. The connected I.A. (C) 4221/2017 is an application under Section 94 (c) , read with Section 151 CPC, wherein the review petitioner have prayed for ad-interim injunction for restraining the opposite parties from disturbing the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land mentioned in Schedule- 2 to 5 of the plaint. As this Court would have to deal with the same set of facts in both the cases, for convenience, both the matters have been heard and decided together.

3. The review petitioners are the appellants in RFA 63/2016, and they are the plaintiffs in T.S. 13/1997. The said suit was for declaration of title and partition. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi, inter-alia, on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in its present form and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. However, liberty was granted that the petitioners are not precluded from instituting a suit afresh by impleading all the necessary parties. The said judgment is assailed in the accompanying RFA 63/2016.

4. In connection with the said appeal, the petitioners herein had earlier filed I.A. (C) No. 1632/2016 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and had prayed for ad-interim injunction to restrain the respondents herein from disturbing the petitioners from land described in Schedule 2 to 5 as mentioned in the plaint and not to alienate the land described in Schedule-1 of the plaint, pending disposal of the appeal. This Court by order dated 04.10.2016, passed an ad-interim order that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the suit land described in Schedule 2 to 5 of the plaint.

5. Aggrieved by the said ad-interim injunction dated 04.10.2016 passed by this Court in I.A. (C) 1632/2016, the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 herein, namely, (i) Mustt. Rustana Begum wife of late Abdul Kuddus Borbhuiya, (2) Md. Nurul Islam Borbhuiya, son of late Illias Ali Borbhuiya, (3) Jalal Uddin Borbhuiya, son of Abdul Sattar Borbhuiya, (4) Md. Suleman Haque Borbhuiya, son of late Adbul Sattar Borbhuiya, (5) Mustt. Khudeja Bibi, wife of late Rafique Uddin Barbhuiya, (6) Md. Nurul Hassan Borbhuiya, son of late Rafique Uddin Borbhuiya, (7) Mustt. Jahera Begum Borbhuiya, daughter of late Rafique Uddin Borbhuiya, (8) Mustt. Kulsuma Begum Borbhuiya, daughter of late Rafique Uddin Borbhuiya, (9) Mustt. Tohera Begum Borbhuiya, daughter of late Rafique Uddin Borbhuiya, (10) Md. Toijul Haque Borbhuiya, son of late Chandu Mia Borbhuiya, (11) Mustt. Nasben Nehar Borbhuiya, daughter of late Haji Basart Ali Borbhuiya, (12) Mustt. Piyarn Neassa Borbhuiya, wife of late Chandu Mia Borbhuiya, and (13) Md. Saleh Ahmed Borbhuiya, son of late Haji Moin Uddin Borbhuiya, had filed an application for alteration, modification, cancellation and or vacating the order dated 04.10.2016 passed in I.A. (C) 1632/2016, which was registered as I.A. (C) 1345/2017. This Court upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for both parties, by a common order dated 15.09.2017 in I.A. (C) 1345/2017 and I.A. (C) 1632/2016, allowed I.A. (C) 1345/2017. Consequently, by setting aside the order dated 04.10.2016, I.A. (C) 1632/2016 was dismissed, inter-alia, on the ground that the petitioners herein were not found to be in exclusive possession over any specific part of the suit land and on a further finding that there was no prayer for permanent injunction in the plaint. Hence, this Court did not find a prima-facie case for grant of injunction. The balance of convenience was also not fo