ZARIR RUSTOM JOSHI Vs. BURZOR RUSTOM JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal was filed by Burzor Joshi. He was the sole appellant. There were seven respondents. But Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were the contesting respondents. The contesting respondents, in the appeal, have filed this Review Application. I am referring to the parties with their status and position in the appeal. Respondents mean, hereinafter, Applicants/Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the appeal and, opponent means Opponent Burzor Joshi in the Review Application.

(2.) Rule was issued in this review application and I heard it finally. Apart from making oral submissions, the advocates for the respondents and opponent also gave written submissions. The review is in respect of my order dated 26th October 2005 in the appeals by which both the Appeals were allowed and disposed off. The Appeals were First Appeal No.1066 of 2005 and First Appeal No.1135 of 2005. Both the appeals were filed by opponent Burzor Joshi.

(3.) Two grounds have been raised by the respondents in the review application as a basis for filing this review application. Firstly, according to them they got hold of certain documents after the impugned order dated 26.10.2005 and those documents throw light on the issue in controversy. Second ground relates to contents of trust deed. According to them the trust deed relied upon and referred to by both the parties did not contain material sentence, which is as under :-