AMRUTLAL SHIVLAL PATEL Vs. PRABHUDAS SHIVLAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The facts insofar as relevant for the purpose of these appeals are stated as under: the plaintiff Prabhudas Shivlal Patel, respondent before us, filed a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. He also filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of civil Procedure. The trial court dismissed the application. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 26-3-1998. On 31-3-1999 the plaintiff moved an application requesting the High Court to recall its earlier order dated 26-3-1998. One of the pleas raised before the High Court in the application seeking review, vide ground (1) para (5) , was that the decision in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini chandrasekharan1 which was relied on in the appellate order was "overruled" by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Rebti Devi v. Ram Dutt. The High Court condoned the delay in filing the review application, allowed the same, recalled the order dated 26-3-1998 and restored the appeal to file solely on the ground as stated by the High Court

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plea taken in ground (1) para (5) of the review application before the High Court is factually incorrect and therefore the very premise on which the High Court has proceeded to recall its earlier order is non-existent. There is substance in this submission. In the case of Rebti Devi this Court has not overruled its earlier decision in R. Rajagopal Reddy rather the earlier decision has been explained and affirmed.