Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) The respondent-defendant has filed this Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC with a prayer to review the judgment and order dated 24.1.2013 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil First Appeal No.316/2006 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiffShri Niranjanlal Joshi was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 21.4.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.77/2004 was set aside and as a consequence thereof the aforesaid suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed with cost.
(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that aforesaid civil suit for possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits was filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-respondent in the trial Court on 8.5.1996 which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2006 and the aforesaid appeal filed against the same was allowed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2013. Claiming that the judgment dated 24.1.2013 has been passed by this Court without considering the relevant facts and legal provisions applicable and there are several errors which are manifest from the record and the same is liable to be reviewed on the basis of grounds taken in the review petition, the review petition has been filed.
(3.) Before considering the review petition, it would be appropriate to decide preliminary objections dated 22.9.2016 taken by the appellant and an application filed by the respondent-review petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and another application under Section 151 CPC. By way of preliminary objections dated 22.9.2016, it is the contention of the appellant that the review petition is liable to be dismissed as it is defective and not properly constituted as per provisions of Order 47 Rule 3 CPC which provides that the provisions applicable to prefer an appeal shall apply mutatis mutandis to any application for review and Rules 125 and 131 of Rules for the Rajasthan High Court of Judicature, 1952 further prescribe that general heading of memorandum of application for review and contents thereof would be in the manner that the review petitioner would be joined as a petitioner in the petition, but in the present case the review petition has been filed in the same nomenclature in which the first appeal was filed by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that Registry of High Court has committed an error in passing the review petition despite it being defectively constituted. It is also the case of the appellant in the preliminary objections that the appeal was argued by Senior Counsel Shri M.M.Ranjan alongwith advocate Shri Juned Ahmad whereas now the respondent review petitioner is represented by an advocate who has not even filed power on his behalf and also 'no objection' has not been taken from the counsel who filed the review petition. The contention of appellant in this regard is also that some of the grounds taken in review petition are such which can be argued and explained only by the counsel who argued the appeal and, therefore, another counsel cannot be permitted to raise such grounds as he was not present when the appeal was heard and decided. Another objection is that the review petitioner has filed written arguments without supplying copy thereof to counsel for the appellant and a new case has been set-up by him in the written arguments and such grounds have also been taken which are not taken in the review petition. It is also the claim of the appellant that some of the grounds taken are such which were neither pleaded in the suit nor in the appeal.;