Review petitions must demonstrate an evident error on the record; otherwise, the decision stands as rendered, emphasizing the distinct limitations of review compared to appeal.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Instant Review Petition is preferred under Order Order XLVII Rule 1, read with Section 114 and 151 CPC for, seeking recall of the Order dated 29.05.2024, whereby an order is passed on Interim Application No. 1/2023, under Order XX Rule 12, read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Objector, while placing reliance upon the grounds of review, submitted that he has preferred an execution appeal before this Hon’ble Court, raising several serious issues, which includes the status of land. He further submitted that the law of sealing is also applicable in the instant case, but the same was not considered while passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the sealing proceedings are still pending before the SDO Kota, and non-petitioner No. 1 has no right to claim any mesne profit from the petitioner. He further submitted that the property in question is allegedly purchased by non-petitioner No. 1 without any title. He also submitted that until and unless the rights of the present petitioner are determined by this Court in the execution appeal, respondent No. 1 is not entitled for mesne profit as claimed by him. He further referred the orders dated 07.01.1994 and 04.10.2018 passed by the Revenue Board, and submitted that at this stage any direction for means profit will adversely affect the rightful claim of the petitioner, therefore, the order passed by this Court suffers from an error apparent on record and the same is liable to be reviewed.

3. The aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the review petition is not maintainable, as this Hon’ble Court has passed the order on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court. He further submitted that respondent No. 1 has purchased the property by registered sale deed, and the order of the Trial Court is passed in favour of respondent No. 1, which is sufficient to fortify the claim of respondent No. 1.

4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. The instant review petition is filed for review of order dated 29.05.2024, which is passed on Interim Application No. 1/2023 and same runs as under:-

1. We are considering IA no. 1/2023 filed under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking direction for mesne profit.

2. Learned counsel for applicant plaintiff (respondent no.1) submits that plaintiff being landlord has filed a suit for eviction against tenant respondent no.2 and same was decreed in favour of plaintiff by learned trial court but during execution proceedings present objector has filed objection petition wherein objector has claimed that the possession of the suit property was taken from respondent no.2 tenant. He further submits that besides delay in execution, on the basis of admission of objector the respondent no.1 is entitled to claim mesne profit from objector, as he is delaying the execution proceedings. He further submits that at present the compensation from the suit property should be granted on the basis of market rent, range of Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- and he prayed that adequate mesne profit be granted to him.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for petitioner (objector) on the ground that a bona fide claim has been made by him for the suit property and same is required to be adjudicated on merits. He further contended that the application is frivolous, mis-conceived and baseless and respondent no.1 has no right to claim ownership over the suit property. He specifically mentioned the grounds and submitted that the respondent no.1 has filed a sham suit against respondent no.2 t