Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant Review Petition filed under Order 47, Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made to review the judgment dated 16.11.2016, passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.210 of 2015 (for short ‘LPA No.210 of 2015’), whereby Letters Patent Appeal having been preferred by review petitioner against judgment passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.3635 of 2015 came to be dismissed.

2. In nutshell, case of the petitioner, as emerged from the pleadings, is that the petitioner, who was Imam of the Boileaugant Mosque, submitted his resignation on 22.7.2003 reserving his right to continue as voluntarily Imam and to keep residential accommodation allotted to him. It is also borne out from record that aforesaid resignation having been tendered by the petitioner was accepted on 31.07.2003 and simultaneously it was resolved by the respondent-Board vide Resolution dated 5.2.2007 to discontinue the voluntary Immamt of the writ petitioner as well as all facilities.

3. Since petitioner failed to comply with the aforesaid Resolution dated 5.2.2007, respondent-Board instituted a Civil Suit before the Wakf Tribunal, Shimla for possession of accommodation provided to him as well as for occupation and recovery of use and occupation charges levied against the petitioner, which was decreed. Petitioner, being aggrieved with aforesaid decree, having been passed by Civil Court, preferred Regular First Appeal bearing RFA No.484 of 2011 before this Court, which was dismissed on 10.09.2014. Subsequently, in the year 2015, petitioner by way of writ petition bearing CWP No. 3635 of 2015, approached this Court praying therein for quashment of Resolution dated 5.2.2007 passed by the respondents, wherein decision was taken to discontinue voluntarily Immamt of the petitioner as well as all facilities accorded to him.

4. By way of aforesaid Writ Petition, petitioner also prayed that he be allowed to continue with honorary Immamt with all facilities provided to him. However, fact remains that aforesaid writ petition, having been filed by the petitioner, was dismissed. Perusal of judgment passed by learned Single Judge in writ petition referred above though suggests that findings returned by this Court in RFA No.484 of 2011, wherein termination of services of petitioner as honorary Immamt was also an issue, weighed heavily with the learned Single Judge, while rejecting writ petition filed by the petitioner, but, if judgment passed by learned Single Judge is read in its entirety, the petition, having been filed by the petitioner, was held to be barred by principles of res judicata as well as limitation. Learned Single Judge specifically held, in the judgment referred above, that petitioner has slept over the matter for quite a considerable long time and has knocked the door of the Court after a gap of 8 years and above all, there is clear unexplained delay and laches in filing the writ petition. Learned Single Judge held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to have a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy that too, once the issue has already been finally adjudicated upon by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.484 of 2011 decided on 10.9.2014.

5. Petitioner, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment passed by learned Single Judge, filed LPA No.210 of 2015, which came to be decided by this Court vide a common judgment dated 16.11.2016. Before adverting to the findings returned by Division Bench of this Court qua the aforesaid LPA, preferred by present petitioner, it may be noticed that question before Division Bench in all connected petitions, including LPA preferred by the petitioner, was “whether Regular First Appeal or Civil Revision or Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie against the order passed by Wakf Tribunal”.

6. Needless to say, before establishment of Wakf Tribunal, District Judge was hearing the cases and determining the disputes un