Judgment:
1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. to review the order passed by this Court in R.S.A. No. 201/2000 and R.S.A. No 202/2000 dated 24.02.2005.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in OS. No 757/1976 the plaintiffs sought for declaration that plaintiffs are the owners of the schedule property and for a direction to the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the schedule property and other reliefs and the reliefs that is sought for in OS. No. 88/1984 is also for declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule property and for direction to defendants to deliver vacant possession of schedule property and directing the defendant to pay costs and therefore the prayer for declaration sought for in respect- of the same schedule property by the same plaintiff is lawful and this Court ought to have held the prayer on O.S. No. SS/84 is also hit by principles of Resjudicata
4. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that in O.S. NO. 88/84 the stags under which the suit came to be filed has been explained in para no. 6 of the plaint averring that the defendant re-entered the property and possession has been takes in Execution 21/82 and therefore it was necessary to file suit for possession and declaration. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit is not decreed for declaration and only direction issued in the suit is that the defendant shall hand over possession of the schedule property to the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 88/84 within one month from the date of judgment (03.08.1995).
5. I have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for parties. It is clear from the perusal of the averment made in the plaint as also prayer sought in O.S. NO. 757/1976 that the raid suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the achedule property and for a direction to defendants to hand over vacant possession of the schedule property and also direction to the defendants to pay sneers and in O.S. No. 85/84 though the prayer is again for declaration of title in respect of same schedule property as described in O.S. No. 757/1976 and for a direction to the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the schedule property. The circumstances under which the second suit O.S. No. 88/84 has been explained in Para no. 6 of the plaint averring that in execution of the decree passed in O.S. No. 757/1976 in Execution No. 21/82 delivery warrant was issued and possession of the property was taken by the plaintiff. However, defendants re-entered the property in the night of 23.04.1993 with the intention of making wonderful gain and to harass the plaintiffs and they have broke open the lock and criminally trespassed into the suit schedule property and illegally took possession of the schedule property and residing in the schedule property and therefore it was necessary for the plaintiffs to file O.S. No. 88/84 and it is clear from the Decree that is passed in O.S. No. 88/84 that the suit is decreed directing the defendant in O.S NO 88/84 to hand over vacant possession of schedule property to the plaintiff within one month and decree is also drawn for the said relief in O.S. No. 88/84 and therefore the suit is not like decreed for declaration of right and only relief which is granted is that the defendants shall hand over possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of order and therefore question of applying the principles of resjudicata would not arise and the order passed by this Court dated 24,02.2005 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the order and does not require review as sought for in the petition. Accordingly I hold that there is no merit in this review petition and pass the following order.
Order
Writ Petition is dismissed and interim order which was in force during the pendency of the review petition shall1stand
vacated.