Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) Heard Senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the review petition. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Division Bench of this court under order dated 3-6-2016 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 846/2016 has granted liberty to the petitioner to approach this court by way of a review petition against the order dated 9-5-2016 passed by this court.
(2.) Mr. Agrawal submitted that instead of directing impleadment of the vendee under sale deed dated 30-3-2007, this court in its order dated 9-5-2016 should have admitted the writ petition and stayed the impugned order dated 20-1-2016 passed by the Board of Revenue for having acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal before it on the one hand, yet directing status quo qua the property which was the subject matter of the appeal on the other hand. Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010)9 SCC 437] , where the Apex Court has held that no court can be used as a forum for interim relief where it has no jurisdiction to address the dispute laid before it.
(3.) Heard. Considered.;