Inder Sen Israni, J. - (1.) TWO petitions for review/recall of the orders dated November 10, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 4937/89, by which the writ petition was dismissed in limine and stay order dated December 8, 1989, which was granted in Writ Petition No. 4419/89 have been filed. Since both the review petitions are inter -connected, they are disposed of by one order. The order dated November 10, 1989 was passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Shri M.C. Jain as he was then and by me and the other order dated December 8, 1989 was passed by Hon'ble Justice Shri G.K. SHARMA as he was then and by me. Both the above mentioned Judges are no more attached with this Court.
(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. SC Bhandari, learned Counsel that these review petitions should be heard by a Division Bench and not by Single Judge since the orders were passed by Division Bench of this Court. The learned Counsel has referred to Rule 64 of the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature Rules, 1952 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1952') and Rules 5 of Order 47 of C.P.C. I have carefully considered the provisions referred to by the learned Counsel. A bare reading of Rule 64 will show that when "an application for review of a judgment is filed the same shall be placed before the Judge or Judges by whom such judgment was delivered. If such Judge or Judges or any one or more of such Judges be no longer attached to the Court or one of them, are or is precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the application, from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, the application shall be laid before the Chief Justice who shall with due regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 47 C.P.C. arrange for a Bench for the hearing and disposal of such application." Rules 5 of Order 47 C.P.C. provides that "when an application for review of an order was passed by more than one Judges, they continue to be attached to the Court at the time when application for review is presented, such application shall be heard and decided by such Judge or Judges or any of them shall hear the application, but no other Judge or Judges shall hear the same." So far as the present petitions are concerned, Hon'ble Shri M.C. Jain and Hon'ble Shri G.K. Sharma are no more attached with this Court. In Maji Mohan Kanwar and Ors. v. a Division Bench of this Court held that "if the decree or order sought to be reviewed is passed by a Division Bench consisting of two Judges and if both of them continue to be attached to the Court, then the application for review must be heard by both of them. If only one of the two Judges continues to be attached to the Court and the other one has retired, or is no longer attached to that Court for any other reason, then the application should be heard by the Single Judge, who continues to be attached to that Court. It cannot be heard by other Judges nor by the same Judge sitting with another Judge who was not a party to the original decree or order sought to be reviewed." In view of the above order of a Division Bench of this Court, I do not find any force in the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel which is, therefore, dismissed. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Revenue Board partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner regarding two Khasras and the appeal of the petitioner regarding remaining two Khasras was rejected. It is submitted that petitioner filed DBCWP No. 4937/89, which was dismissed in limine by order under view. It is submitted that the non -petitioners also filed Di3CWP No. 4419/89 against the same order passed by Revenue Board. In this writ petition direction for issue of notice was given on December 8, 1989 by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Justice Shri G.K. Sharma as he was then and by me. An order was also passed on the same date staying the operation of the order of Revenue* Board mentioned above, regarding Khasra Mos 105/1 and 272/2. It is submitted that since both these writ petitions were filed against the same order of Revenue Board it was mandatory to have heard both the petitions at the same time as laid down by Rule 113 of Rules 1952. It is further submitted that petitioner had filed a caveat bearing No. 2151 on 16.3.1989 and notice of this caveat was also given to the opposite parties as also to their counsel by registered post. An affidavit to this effect has been filed. However, the petitioner came to know about filing of the writ petition by the nonpetitioners for the first time on January 20, 1990 when the stay order Anx. 6 was served upon him. It is submitted that contradictory orders have been passed as the order of Revenue Board has been upheld while dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner whereas the same has been stayed in the writ petition filed by the non -petitioners regarding two Khasras mentioned above.
(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. G.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the non -petitioners that Rule 113 is not applicable to the writ petitions. It is also submitted that neither he nor the non -petitioners received any notice of the caveat said to have been filed by the petitioner. Unless this had been done, the filing of caveat has no effect. It is pointed out that no postal receipts of the notice having been sent by registered post have been produced on record. It is also submitted that no contradictory orders have been passed, since the writ petition filed by the non -petitioners is yet to be disposed of. It is also submitted that petitioner could have applied for vacating the interim stay order, but this has not been done and instead this application for review has been filed, which does not lie.;