Issue of maintainability of the present Application has been raised in light of provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as under :
1. Application for review of judgment.— (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) By a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.9 submits that the exception in Sub-clause 2 of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 comes to his assistance in saying that the present Review Application is not maintainable. He points out that the Respondent No.9 has preferred an Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2016, against the Judgment and Order under Review before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and raised questions about the compensation awarded in the present case. He submits that the Review Applicant being the Respondent No.9 therein has joined the issues in the said Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and also questioned the quantum of compensation.
Having perused the record, we find that the Appellant is seeking quashing of the order of compensation in totality and the Review Applicant is seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. We do not see any commonality in the grounds resorted to by the Applicant and Appellant in the said Appeal. Exception to Sub-clause 2 of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, does not come to the help of Respondent No.9. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Review Application is maintainable Plea of non-maintainability of the Review Application is rejected.
For want of time at the instance of the Respondents.