The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of review and the need for finality in legal disputes, highlighting the principle that successive review applications are not maintainable once a case has been decided on merits.

( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THIS second review/modification application has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order dated 7. 9. 2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52933 of 2002 as well as the judgment and order dated 20. 3. 2007 passed in Review Application No. 273173 of 2006.

( 3 ) THE ground of review is that the judgments and orders dated 7. 9. 2006 and 20,3. 2007 had been passed on the undertaking given by the Counsel for the petitioners before the Court without any instruction on the subject-matter" by his client, the petitioner.

( 4 ) SRI Khalil Ahamad, Counsel engaged subsequently for the petitioners submits that the undertaking was given by the earlier Counsel for the petitioners under the impression that the petitioners would not be having any hardship in vacating the disputed shop and is not willing to contest the writ petition. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 3 of the review application which is as under:-

"because as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Apex Court in (1998) 6 SCC 507, no Court can foreclose a statutory or constitutional remedy only on the basis of undertaking given by the party to vacate the premises and it is further held that the appeal filed by the tenant against the order of eviction would be maintainable, notwithstanding any undertaking given by him before the High Court that he would vacate the premises within a specified time. "

( 5 ) IT is urged that the landlord has played fraud upon the Court by misleading that the disputed premises is house whereas it is a shop situated in a commercial building at Delhi Road, Meerut and further that the original tenant was an employee of Roadways whereas it is the son of the landlord who is employee of the Roadways.

( 6 ) HE further submits that the issue whether the petitioners are legal tenants or not stands decided in the suit vide judgment and order dated 9. 2. 2001 filed by the landlord by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut which has attained finality as the same was not challenged by the landlord; that it is settled law that if an issue between the same party has been decided it can not be agitated again as it is covered under the provisions of resjudicata but the landlord has obtained the order of this Court by distorting the facts and misleading that the petitioners/tenants are occupying the disputed shop illegally.

( 7 ) IN this regard he has placed reliance upon paragraph 5 of the judgment rendered in U. P. Junior Doctor Action Committee v. Doctor B. Sheetal Nandwani and others,air 1991 SC 909 in which, it has been held that:-

"where a person has obtained an order from the High Court by fraud or false representation that order, as well as all advantages obtained there under shall be cancelled. "

( 8 ) HE further submits that the compromise of agreement and rent deed signed by both the parties has material bearing and effect upon adjudication upon the rights of the parties as held by the Apex Court in the case of Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) by LRs. v. Sardar Dastitr School Trust and others,2005 (58) ALR 838 (SC)=2005 (27) AIC 31.

"the documents sought to be produced by tenants are material and if substantiated would have a material effect on plea of bona fide need in that event are admissible. "

( 9 ) HE has also relied upon the alleged agreement of compromise said to have been executed on 30. 7. 2006 between him and the landlord. It is vehemently urged that the aforesaid agreement is duly signed by both the parties and duly notarized by the Notary. The landlord now cannot claim it to be a forged document when in fact the said document was validly executed by the parties and its authorities has been confirmed by the police investigation report and the landlord has received increased rent from the petitioners and issued a receipt thereof in terms of the said agreement.

( 10 ) THE Counsel for the respondent landlord submits that a contract is ente