IMPORTANT POINT
Review petitions must present new evidence or clear errors; they cannot reargue previously decided issues.

ORDER :

1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 08.08.2018 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 388/2010 whereby, the first appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff was allowed.

2. The respondent/ plaintiff had filed an appeal before this Court being S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 388/2010 which came to be decided in favour of the respondent plaintiff vide judgment dated 08.08.2018. Upon allowing of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC praying for re-hearing of the appeal. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2018 and 30.10.2018. The SLP preferred by the present petitioners also came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2018. Now the petitioners have preferred the present review petition for reviewing the order dated 08.08.2018.

3. The present appeal has been listed in ‘Defect’ category as the same is barred by delay of 305 days. The review petitioners had filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that this Court while passing the judgment dated 08.08.2018 has not considered the fact that the Issues No. 4 to 6 and 8 & 9 have been decided against the plaintiff and even if the suit was within the period of limitation, then too the respondent/plaintiff was not able to prove his case qua his claim for possession. It is argued that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had not reversed the findings on Issues No. 4 to 6, 8 & 9 while passing the judgment dated 08.08.2018 and therefore, there is error apparent on the face of record. It is further argued that this Court has considered the fact that the plaintiff was able to prove the permissible possession of the defendants whereas, it was not the case of permissible possession but the possession was open and hostile. Another argument of counsel for the petitioners is that respondent Shyam Singh Parihar died in the year 2021 but the legal representatives of deceased were not brought on record. On the contrary, vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shyam Singh Parihar in the year 2022.

5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that the present review petition is nothing but abuse of process of law. Admittedly, after allowing of the appeal, the petitioners filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC praying for reviewing the order dated 08.08.2018. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2018. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court feeling aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2018 and 30.10.2018. The said SLP preferred by the present petitioners also came to be dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2018. Now, after dismissal of SLP, the petitioners have again preferred the present review petition for reviewing the order dated 08.08.2018. Further, the present review petition has been filed by the petitioners after gross delay of 305 days, without any explanation for the cause of delay. Learned counsel for respondents has also adverted at some length on the scope of the review petition. It is contended that no re-hearing of the matter on merits of issues which was known to or available with the petitioners at the time of the original hearing is permissible in the present review petition. Thus, it is prayed that the present review petition may be dismissed with exemplary cost upon the petitioners.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record.

7. From the facts on record, it is evident that after allowing of the appeal, the petitioners had earlier filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC praying for rehearing/reviewing the order dated 08.08.2018. The said application was dismissed by this Court by way of order dated 30.10.2018. Thereaft