Sanjay Kumar Medhi,J. - (1.) Heard Shri R. Goswami, learned counsel for the review applicant as well as Shri R. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c).
(2.) The present application has been filed for review of the Judgment and order dated 10.01.2014 passed by this Court in RSA/16/2005. Shri Goswami, learned counsel, amongst other grounds has submitted that this Court while passing the aforesaid judgment and order had not considered the exact position of the suit land and as such, the same could not be properly demarcated. It has also been submitted that the proportion of share of land with the boundary was not properly taken into account for which prejudice has been suffered by the applicant. Shri Goswami, learned counsel further submits that even though there were existing documents because of the fact that the applicants were not in a position to bring those to the notice of the Court, error has crept in the judgment.
(3.) Shri Sarma, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), on the other hand by referring to the objection filed on 02.05.2017 has submitted that the pre-conditions required to file a review has laid down in Order XLVII of the CPC have not been met at all and therefore, the review is not maintainable. He further submits that the documents sought to be relied upon were existing documents which establishes lack of due diligence on the part of the applicant.;