BERI, C.J.—These three writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution of India raise an identical question and can be disposed of by a single judgment Different learned Members of the Board of Revenue by their judgments of different dates following the decision of the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue in Madhosingh vs. Moti Lal(l) declined to hear the three review petitions of the petitioners before us, on the ground that the judgments against which those review applications were made, were rendered by the Members who were no longer attached to the Board of Revenue and the petitions failed in view of the interpretation given to O. 47 r. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue.

2. While the learned counsel for the petitioners before us contend that the view taken in Madhosinghs case (1) is erroneous, the learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners supported it for the reasons given therein.

3. In Madhosinghs case (1) the view taken by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue has been expressed in para 53 of the judgment, which reads:

"To sum up, the conditions for R. 5 of O.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to come into play are (i) that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document