R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 31st July, 2001 passed by this Court, this review petition has been filed.
(2.) WITHOUT going into the deep history of the litigation, suffice it to say that in 1974, Shri Triloki Nath Sahani, respondent No. 4, filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for seeking a reference to be made before the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Consequently, a reference was made to the Civil Judge. Although in 1978, the reference was dismissed in default, but after a lapse of eight years, the said reference was restored in 1987. Vide order dated 06.04.1990, the learned Civil Judge decreed the reference in favour of Mr. Triloki Nath Sahani. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Rajasthan filed an appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, in 1999, the National Housing Cooperative Society Ltd., ('the petitioner' for short) moved an application for impleadment. On 31.03.1999 while dealing with the petitioner's application, this Court observed that 'the application shall be considered subsequently, if the need so arises'. However, on 17.05.2001 when the case was listed for final hearing, the name of the petitioner's Counsel was not shown in the cause -list. Inadvertently, the application filed by the petitioner was not considered. Without hearing the petitioner, this Court pronounced the judgment on 31.07.2001. Therefore, the petitioner filed a review petition before this Court as well as a Special Leave Petition ('SLP', for short) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 01.04.2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the said SLP in limine. Subsequently, vide order dated 21/23.05.2003, this Court also dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 21/23.05.2003, it filed a SLP before the Apex Court. Vide order dated 28.03.2005, the Apex Court allowed the SLP and directed this Court to hear this review petition on merit. Hence, this review petition before this Court. Mr. Alok Sharma, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that on 17.05.2001, when the case was listed for hearing, the name of Counsel for the petitioner was not shown in the cause -list. Thus, neither the petitioner, nor his Counsel had any information that the case was so listed. Without considering the application, which was already filed by the petitioner, this Court proceeded to hear the case and to pass the judgment. Since neither the petitioner, nor his Counsel were aware that the case had been listed, they had sufficient reason for not appearing before the Court when the matter was taken up. According to the learned Counsel, thus, sufficient reason does exist for their non -appearance. Once 'sufficient reason' is shown to exist, the judgment deserves to be reviewed. In order to buttress these contentions, the Learned Counsel has relied upon the case of Shaeed Bhagat Singh Coop., H.B. Society Ltd. v. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, AIR 2000 SC 3589.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, the Learned Counsel for the non -petitioner Nos. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6, has contended that on numerous occasions, the case was listed and yet the Learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press for decision on the application for impleadment. Therefore, he does not have 'sufficient reason' for filing the review petition.;