- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. These review petitions are directed against the judgment dated 13.02.2012 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, whereby, the appeals therein were dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2003 passed by the trial court was affirmed.
(2.) THE review petition, which runs into about 23 pages contains as many as 14 grounds seeking to question the judgment passed by this Court. The principal submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that while passing the impugned judgment, this Court did not consider the effect of document (Ex.A/1) regarding which the empathetic arguments were advanced before this Court, which has resulted into passing of the impugned judgment and according to the learned counsel the same suffers from error apparent on the face of record, which needs to be rectified by this Court. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the document (Ex. -A/1) has been considered by this Court while passing the impugned judgment, if the implication of its consideration is not accord in with the petitioners' perception, the same cannot be a ground seeking review of the impugned judgment and for that purpose the petitioners are required to invoke the appellate jurisdiction. The review petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the review petition. This Court in the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2012 at page - 10 -11 of the judgment observed as under: - "The issue No.1 is regarding the ownership and possession of the suit property. As per the record of the case, Tejraj deposited Rs.125/ - as advance money in the Nagar Palika, Bhilwara and further the receipts Ex.5, 6, 7 and 12, by which the amount was deposited in the Nagar Palika, Bhilwara, are in the name of Tejraj. In rebuttal to these receipts Ex.5, 6, 7 and 12, there is oral evidence of defendant -appellant Hari Singh regarding the fact that this amount was deposited by him and by letter Ex.A.1, Tejraj shown his intention to purchase the property for Hari Singh. The learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiff drew my attention towards letter Ex.13, in which Hari Singh while addressing the letter to Tejraj submitted that as per the directions of Tejraj, he sold the property but did not get it registered in view of the information published in the newspaper regarding revocation of the power of attorney and further it was submitted that an appeal regarding registration of the sale deeds is pending before the Registrar, Bhilwara. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent -plaintiffs that the letter Ex.13 clearly shows that the property was in the name of Tejraj and it was never the intention of Tejraj to purchase the property for Hari Singh. It is an admitted fact that Ex.1 Patta is in the name of Tejraj and it bears the signatures of Hari Sinigh on every page and also in the place of Pattadar, but looking to the fact that Ex.5, 6, 7 and 12 receipts are in the name of Tejraj and the patta Ex.1 was issued in his name, therefore, it is well - established that so far as the ownership of the property is concerned, it is in the name of Tejraj and the finding of the learned trial court regarding this fact does not require any interference at this stage." ;