Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) This is a petition for review of judgement and order dated 22nd December, 2004, passed in Writ Petition No. 135 (RC) of 2004. The sole ground raised by the petitioner's counsel is that while dismissing the writ petition this court had incorrectly interpreted the law laid down by Apex Court in a case reported in 2002 (5) SCC 440 : AIR 2002 SC 2004, Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan v. Jagdamba Industrial corporation . According to petitioner's counsel in view of provision contained in Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and law laid down by the Apex Court (particularly under Para 20 of the Rakesh Wadhawan's case), the rent deposited by the petitioner on the first date of hearing or before that shall not create a ground for interference with the petitioner's tenancy over the shop in question.
(2.) On the other hand, respondent's counsel had proceeded to submit that the power of review under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure has got limited scope and only error apparent at the face of record may be looked into. According to respondents counsel since the solitary ground raised by the petitioner's counsel to exercise power of review relates to correctness or interpretation of Apex Court judgement in Rakesh Wadhwan's case (supra) which has already been considered by this court while dismissing the writ petition by impugned order dated 22nd December, 2004, it is not open for interference in view of Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Respondent's counsel had further submitted that the original agreement was not filed in the court below and no application for extension of time was filed, hence, the agreement which was not filed in the subordinate court cannot be taken into account to extend benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. Respondent's counsel further prayed that he may be permitted to file an affidavit to place certain material on record keeping in view the argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel.
(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the parties counsel. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that ground raised by the petitioner's counsel relating to the Apex Court judgment was considered while dismissing the writ petition. Now whether the petitioner's counsel may be permitted to argue the case afresh on merit while approaching this court under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure Whether the Apex Court judgment can again be re-considered and interpreted in different manner then what was done at the time of original hearing Whether the parties may be permitted to advance arguments denovo on merit more so when the writ petition was dismissed at admission stage in limine without exchange of affidavits;