KUNJA MUHAMMED Vs. PAZHUKKAMARROM DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application seeking review of my judgment dated 17.12.2004 in S.A. No. 47 of 2002. The respondent in the second appeal is the review petitioner.

(2.) A substantial question of law that arose for decision in the second appeal was as to whether the lessee of a delinquent trustee, who had been ordered to account and deliver up properties and documents of the trust to the new trustees is liable to be dispossessed by a decree in a suit filed invoking Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I answered that issue in the affirmative by the judgment sought to be reviewed. Accordingly, it was also held that the respondent in the second appeal (review petitioner), who was the seventh defendant in the suit cannot have any claim independent of the delinquent Trustee, who was ordered to account and deliver up properties and documents of the trust. It was held that the seventh defendant had no right to continue in possession.

(3.) It is urged on behalf of the review petitioner that the judgment of the lower appellate court, which has been reversed by the judgment in the second appeal was passed by the court below referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai and Ors. and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Uma Shanker and Ors. v. Salig Ram and Ors. and that while rendering the judgment in the second appeal, I had omitted to consider the said two decisions, of which reference was made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the respondent in the second appeal during the course of arguments. To urge that non-consideration of the decisions referred to at the time of arguments is a ground for review, the learned counsel for the review petitioner has referred to the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by referring the Short Notes of the said case in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hukumchand Mills (2005 (1) K.L.T. S.N. 60 [Case No. 75]).