ORDER 1. We have considered the review petition and the connected papers. The main ground in the review petition alleges that there was an apparent error in the impugned judgment when it was observed that there is a dispute amongst the legal heirs of the deceased applicant and therefore the application for restitution under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not decided early. 2. It is contended that all the heirs of the deceased Bishan Dass were the petitioners and there was no dispute inter se. Prima facie, the submission appeared attractive. But on closer scrutiny it could not be sustained for the simple reason that in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20870 of 1998 which was disposed of by the impugned order, a counter-affidavit was filed (at p. 187) by the power-of-attorney holder of Respondent 16 Subhash, son of Kashmiri Lal. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been averred at p. 189 that the deponent, Subhash was claiming to be the legatee under the will of the deceased Bishan Dass and the property was bequeathed to him. He had produced a translated copy of the will and has further averred that on the basis of the will the answering respondent moved an application for being made party in the connected proceedings before the trial court and consequently the answering respondent was ordered to be made a party in the suit. It is further averred at para 13 at p. 190 of the paper-book that it is prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to deliver/hand over the possession of suit property bearing No. 13/1079, Bazar Moreganj, Saharanpur (U.P.) to the answering respondent. This clearly shows that there is a dispute between the natural heirs of the deceased and the aforesaid deponent who claims to be the legatee under the will of Bishan Dass and entitled to the said property and restoration of its possession. Consequently, it cannot be said that when it was observed by us in the impugned judgment that it has been brought to our notice that in the said application the applicant had unfortunately died and now there is a dispute amongst the legal heirs of the deceased applicant, there was any error, much less any patent error. Consequently, it cannot be said that when it was observed by us in the impugned judgment that it has been brought to our notice that in the said application the applicant had unfortunately died and now there is a dispute amongst the legal heirs of the deceased applicant, there was any error, much less any patent error. The question as to who is entitled to restoration of possession of the suit property has to be resolved between the petitioners on the one hand and Respondent 16 who is already joined as a party to the proceedings and who claims to be the sole legatee under the will of deceased Bishan Dass and entitled to possession under Section 144 CPC. Under these circumstances no error, much less any patent error could be demonstrated by the review petitioners for our interference. Rest of the direction only reiterated the High Courts earlier decision that the proceedings should be disposed of at the earliest. That certainly cannot prejudice the petitioners nor can the petitioners state that possession should be straight away ordered to be restored to them by the decree-holder without considering the rival claim of Respondent 16. The review petition is therefore, dismissed.