RCA No. 71/2013 Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh & Ors. RCA No. 72/2013 Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh & Ors. 04.05.2016 ORDER: (1) Vide this combine order I shall be deciding the identical applications under Section 114 and 151 read with Order 47 CPC filed by the appellant Jaspal Singh in RCA No. 70/2013 under the title 'Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors' ; RCA No. 71/2013 under the title 'Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh' and RCA No. 72/2013 under the title 'Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh'. By way of these applications the applications the applicant Jaspal Singh is seeking a review of the order/ judgment dated 16.04.2015 passed by this Court thereby dismissing the appeals filed by Jaspal Singh on virtual identical grounds against Surinder Singh and others in RCA No. 70/2013 and against Didar Singh in RCA No. 71/2013 and RCA No. 72/2013. Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors., RCA No. 70/2013 Page No. 1 Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh & Ors, RCA No. 71/2013 Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh & Ors, RCA No. 72/2013 (2) Perusal of the record show that all the three appeals were being taken up together before the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and also before this Court since the grounds raised in all the appeals are almost identical. (3) It is pleaded by the appellant that while passing the judgment dated 16.04.2015 thereby dismissing the appeal, this Court has acted contrary to the mandatory provisions of Order 41, Rule 30 and Rule 31 CPC. It is also pleaded that the appellant and his pleader has not been heard by way of oral arguments which is the only mode prescribed in law for disposal of the appeal and the appellant has not been granted a fair opportunity of putting forth of his arguments before this Court and has been deprived of his right to argue the appeal in its entirety. It is further pleaded that this Court has not decided any point raised by the appellant in the written arguments filed on the directions of this Court nor the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the appellant was decided and hence the judgment dated 16.04.2015 has to be reviewed. (4) In the reply to the application by the respondents, a preliminary objection has been raised that the applicant is not maintainable as it does not satisfy any ingredients of Section 114 or Order 47 CPC and is otherwise not maintainable as the applicant has failed to give any cogent reason for review of the order. It is submitted that the present application has been filed by the appellant only to harass the respondents and to keep the matter alive and pending, although the applicant is fully aware that Jaspal Singh Vs. Surinder Singh & Ors., RCA No. 70/2013 Page No. 2 Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh & Ors, RCA No. 71/2013 Jaspal Singh Vs. Didar Singh & Ors, RCA No. 72/2013 nothing survives in the appeal in view of the earlier judgments and orders which have been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in two rounds of separate litigation. On merits it is denied that the order dated 16.04.2015 needs to be reviewed. It is also denied that the oral arguments of the counsel for the appellant were not heard and it is submitted that the appellant has knowingly, willfully and intentionally pleaded wrong facts. It is pointed out that this Court in the order dated 16.04.2015 discussed the arguments put forth by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant in detail and it is submitted that the appellant has deliberately and willfully given the wrong facts to obtain a favourable order. It is denied that the appellant has not been given a fair opportunity of hearing and has been deprived of his right to argue the appeal in its entirety. It is also submitted that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was an application for interim injunction and no formal order was required to be passed since the interim injunction order came to an end on the dismissal of the appeal and hence no error has been committed by this Court while passing the order dated 16.04.2015 and there is no ground or justification for review of the said order. (5) I have considered the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and the catena of judgments placed before me by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant which are as under: 1. Pitamber Bhondu Patil Vs.