AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Mohapatra, J.—All these review petitions have been filed claiming that the review Petitioners had purchased different portions of land from the disputed property much before the writ Petitioner purchased the disputed land. It will not be out of place to mention that these Petitioners (Review Petitioners in 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, 86, 96, 97, 115 and 116 of 2006) were not parties in the writ application and, their dispute is basically with the ex-Intermediary Kishore Chandra Pattnaik and Smt. Harpriya Bisoi. The dispute being of civil nature, appropriate remedy lies in the competent civil Court. The review Petitioners not being parties to the writ application, their case cannot be considered in a review petition for the relief claimed. They may approach the competent civil Court.
Shri Yeeshan Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that the review Petitioners have no objection to go to the civil Court but a finding in the writ application that Smt. Harpriya Bisoi is in possession of the disputed property will be binding in the suit. The finding is based on records and, therefore the same cannot be disturbed in a review petition filed by some purchasers who were never parties in the writ application.
In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the review petitions and, accordingly all the review petitions are dismissed.
R.N. Biswal, J.
I agree.