1. The petitioners in these interlocutory applications were the respondents in A.S.No.254/1991. The suit was instituted by the appellants for recovery of possession on the strength of title. They contended in the suit that initially rent control proceedings had been initiated in which it was found that the denial of title by the tenant of the title of the landlord was bonafide and they had been relegated to a suit.

2. In the plaint they pointed out that the defendants are tenants under them and it was on that basis the eviction was sought for. Out of the several defendants the 1st defendant alone contested the suit. The others remained ex parte. The 1st defendant contended that he alone had rights over suit property and he disputed the tenancy arrangement pleaded in the plaint and set up title in himself. To be more precise he contended that he had perfected his titled by adverse possession and limitation and plaintiff no longer had any subsisting title. It is significant to notice that even in the rent control petition, the case se up by the 1st defendant/tenant who was characterised as a tenant by the landlord was not that though he was a tenant, the petitioner was not his landlord but the title vested in somebody else. His definite stand was that he had absolute title over the property and nobody else had any right over the suit property and he was not a tenant at all under anybody.

3. In the suit again the 1st defendant reiterated his claim of title in his favour and denied title of the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the contesting defendant as the tenant the 1st defendant who alone had contested did not accept that allegation and contended that he was not a tenant at all under anybody and the suit property belonged exclusively to him. He maintained the same stand as in rent control proceedings.

4. It is seen that the trial court did not raise an issue as to whether the 1st defendant was the tenant of the suit property.

5. The trial court on an appreciation of evidence in the suit found that even though the plaintiffs had title to the suit property, that has been lost by adverse possession and limitation and accordingly dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.254/1991 before this Hon’ble court. This Court found that the lower appellate court had erred in applying Article 64 to the suit and that the Article that was applicable is Article 65 of the Limitation Act. If that be so this court held that once the plaintiffs proved their title to the suit property, burden shifts to the defendants to prove that the plaintiffs have lost title by adverse possession and limitation. On a consideration of the evidence it was found that the predecessor-in-interest of the 1st defendant through whom he claimed title at best could be only a licensee and the possession of the 1st defendant could not be better. Finding that the plea of adverse possession had not been established this court decreed the suit.

7. Long thereafter I.A.No.2360/2012 was filed by respondents 2 to 5 pointing out that after the death of the 1st defendant the legal heirs who were sought to be impleaded had engaged a counsel and their counsel was not heard in the appeal and the matter needs to be re-heard. The petition was opposed by the respondents who pointed out several facts which according to them would show that there was no bonafides in the claim. After considering the rival contentions this court accepted the plea put forwarded by the respondents in the petition and found that a re-hearing was not called for. However this court felt that in the light of the legal issue raised before this court, an opportunity ought to be given to the petitioners herein to agitate the said issue.

8. Though this court refused to treat I.A.No.2360/2012 as a re-hearing petition this court considered it as a petition for review to a limited extent of considering the question whether this co