UMA SHANKER SHARMA Vs. MIHILAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicants in review and defendant-appellants in decided second appeal and Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the opposite parties in review and plaintiff/ respondents decided second appeal.

(2.) The instant application has been filed by defendant-appellants under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sec. 114 CPC seeking review of my final judgment and order dtd. 16/12/2024, whereby I had dismissed Second Appeal No. 2565 of 1984 (Premwati and others Vs. Mihilal Sharma and another) on merits.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is an error apparent on the face of record inasmuch as this Court, in 6th paragraph of the judgment dtd. 16/12/2024, though referred 5 substantial questions of law contained in the admission order dtd. 19/10/1984, being question Nos. (a) to (e), while this Court answered questions No. (a), (b), (c) and (d), it omitted to answer question No. (e) which relates to possession aspect and, therefore, the judgment is required to be reviewed. Elaborate submissions have been made by both sides with reference to the said question No. (e) and it is also urged by the applicants' counsel that arguments were advanced during the course of hearing of the appeal also, however, this Court has not noted the same in the judgment.