(1.) This application is filed by the original petitioners with a prayer to review the judgment dated 24/10/2005 passed in Special Civil Application No. 1992 of 2005 and its allied matters. It is the say of the applicants that though open plot no. 76/1 was the subject matter of these petitions, while delivering the judgment and granting relief to the applicants, through oversight, the Court has not mentioned the said plot in the judgment and taking disadvantage of the same, the opponent Corporation has evicted the occupants of the said plot. It is prayed in the application that the judgment be reviewed and original plot no. 76/1 of T.P. Scheme No. 37 be included in it.
(2.) We have perused the application as well as the judgment, as also the record of the petition. We have heard Mr. NS Sheth, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr. Satyam Chhaya, learned advocate for respondent Corporation. It is submitted by Mr. Sheth that right from the beginning the applicants' contention was that original plot no. 76/1 was occupied by some of the applicants and it was also understood at the time of disposing of the petitions by this Court that the occupants of original plot no. 76/1 would be accommodated on the new plots which may be created under the T.P. Scheme.
(3.) We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned advocates. The record of the petition clearly shows that original plot no. 76/1 was never mentioned by the petitioners in the petitions. The reliefs were claimed only in respect of original plots no. 76 and 76/2. That is how, while delivering the judgment, the Division Bench gave direction in respect of original plots no. 76 and 76/2 alone. When that is so, we do not find any error having been committed by this Court in not mentioning original plot no. 76/1 in the judgment. In view of it, we find that the applicants have not made out any case to accede to their request and review the judgment. The application is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged.