B. K. RATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for review of my judgment dated 25. 1. 2002 passed in Second Appeal no. 1324 of 2000. The facts giving rise to the review application are as under : the suit was filed by the applicants-respondents against the appellant for restraining him from interfering in the peaceful possession of the applicants-respondents over Plot No. 96/1, area 0. 065 hqt. and also restraining the appellant from interfering in raising boundary wall over it by the applicants-respondents. The suit was decreed by both the courts below, against which, the nagar Nigam filed Second Appeal No. 1324 of 2000 which was allowed by me on 25. 1. 2002. The merits of the case were not considered in the second appeal and it was allowed only on the ground that the suit was bad for want of notices under Clause (1) of Section 571 of U. P. Nagar mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. Request has been made for the review of the said judgment. ( 2 ) 1 have heard Sri J. Nagar, learned counsel for the applicants-respondents and Sri S. D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam and perused the record. ( 3 ) AS already said, the second appeal was not considered on merits and it was simply allowed for the reason that the suit is barred under Clause (1) of Section 571 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika adhiniyam, 1959 as no notice was served prior to the filing of the suit as required by that section. ( 4 ) IT has been contended that the correct facts could not be placed before the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal. The file of the courts below has been summoned to point out the correct facts, ( 5 ) IT has been argued that in para 9 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the matter is extremely urgent and, therefore, the suit is being filed without serving the statutory notice as it will defeat the purpose of the suit. ( 6 ) IT has been further argued that, therefore, the suit is covered under the proviso of Clause (1) of section 571, U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, ( 7 ) IT has been further argued that because of these pleadings, this point was neither pressed in the trial court nor in the first appellate court. ( 6 ) IT has been further argued that, therefore, the suit is covered under the proviso of Clause (1) of section 571, U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, ( 7 ) IT has been further argued that because of these pleadings, this point was neither pressed in the trial court nor in the first appellate court. That both the judgments show that no arguments were advanced on that point. That this point was raised suddenly in the second appeal and the counsel for the respondents could not point out this pleading. That, therefore, this is an error apparent on the face of the record. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the arguments, I am of the view that the suit is not barred by Clause (1) of section 571 of U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, the review application is allowed and the judgment and order dated 25. 1. 2002 is set aside and it is ordered that the appeal of the appellant shall stand dismissed. However, no order as to costs. .