JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 09.05.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the application preferred by the appellants under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing/recalling of the order dated 12.10.2012 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction for a house situated near Hanuman Mandir, Yadav Mohalla, Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh against the respondents-defendants. Along with the suit, an application for granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule and 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. The said application for temporary injunction was disposed of by the learned trial court on the basis of an agreement between the counsel for the parties that the respondent-defendants may raise constructions on the property in question and the constructions so raised, will be taken into corpus while deciding the suit for partition. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 12.10.2012, the appellants had preferred an appeal being CMA No. 2490/2012 before this Court, however, this Court was not inclined to entertain the said appeal, therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to move an application for reviewing/recalling of the order dated 12.10.2012 and this Court had dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, while granting the liberty sought for. The appellants, thereafter, had moved an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC before the learned trial court for reviewing/recalling of the order dated 12.10.2012, which came to be rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 09.05.2013. Hence, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned trial court has committed grave error in rejecting the application for reviewing/recalling of the order dated 12.10.2012 without taking into consideration that the appellants have never given any consent to their counsel before the trial court for allowing the respondent-defendants to raise the constructions on the property in question. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not agreed for keeping the construction raised by the respondents in the corpus and as such, the order dated 12.10.2012 was liable to be reviewed. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were not agreed for keeping the construction raised by the respondents in the corpus and as such, the order dated 12.10.2012 was liable to be reviewed. The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the consent given by the Advocates without obtaining permission from the litigants is of no value. The trial court should have decided the application for temporary injunction preferred by the appellants on the basis of merits of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramkaran v. Shrikishan & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 Rajasthan 130 and Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors., reported in 2005 AIR SCW 230 and prayed that the orders passed by the learned trial court on 12.10.2012 and 09.05.2013 may be set aside. 5. This Court has taken into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and perused the orders impugned. 6. The appellants have preferred an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing/recalling of the order dated 12.10.2012, however, the learned counsel for the appellants, before the trial court, has failed to satisfy the Court that on which ground, the order dated 12.10.2012 was sought to be reviewed and has admitted that the review application was not based on any of the grounds as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observations of the trial court to this effect are reproduced hereunder: " 04- cgl mHk;i{k lquh xbZ ,oa i=koyh ,oa i=koyh ,oa fofo/k nhokuh izdj.k la[;k 33@2012 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 12-10-2012 dk v/;;u fd;k x;kA ftl vkns'k fnukafdr 12-10-2012 ij iqufoZyksdu pkgk x;k gS og vkns'k 'kCn'k% fuEu izdkj gSA "" 12-10-2012 odhy izkFkhZ Jh vkj0oh0 fla?ky mifLFkrA odhy foi{kh Jh ,0ds0 fiNksfy;k mifLFkr gSA cgl izkFkZuk i= ds nkSjku nksuksa fo}ku vf/koDrk bl ckr ij lger gq, fd nksuksa gh i{k fdlh Hkh :i esa oknxzLr lEifRr edku o cjkenk xyh dk vUrj.k ugha djsaxs ijUrq izfroknhx.k ( foi{kh ) fjgk;'k dh txg miyC/k u gksus dh dfBukbZ ds pyrs lEifRr esa dUV~D'ku djus gsrq bl 'krZ ij Lora= gksaxs fd muds }kjk fd;k tk jgk dUV~D'ku lEifRr ds ewy corpus esa 'kkfey gksrk jgsxk vkSj oknxzLr lEifRr dk fgLlk curk jgsxk vFkkZr izfroknhx.k dks muds }kjk fd;s x;s dUV~D'ku ij fdlh izdkj dk vf/kdkj ugha jgsxk ,oa lHkh U;kf;d mns';ksa gsrq izfroknhx.k }kjk fd;k x;k dUV~D'ku oknxzLr lEifRr dk vfHkUu vax gksxk ftl ij bl fu.kZ; esa ikfjr vfUre vkns'k ykxw jgsxkA mijksDrkuqlkj vkns'k ds fy;s nksuksa i{kksa us izR;{k Lohd`fr ikfjr dh gSA vr% mijksDruqlkj ,rn}kjk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh Qsly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy layXu ewy i=koyh jgsA " 05- mDr vkns'k ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd mDr vkns'k lHkh i{kksa dh lgefr ls ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA vkns'k 47 fu;e ( 1 ) 'kCn'k% fuEu izdkj gS& " fu.kZ; ds iqufoZyksdu ds fy, vkosnu ( 1 ) tks dksbZ O;fDr ( d ) fdlh ,slh fMdzh ;k vkns'k ls ftldh vihy vuqKkr gS fdUrq ftldh dksbZ vihy ugha dh xbZ gS ( [k ) fdlh ,slh fMdzh ;k vkns'k ls ftldh vihy vuqKkr ugha gS] vFkok ( x ) y?kqokn U;k;ky; }kjk fd, x, funsZ'k ij fofu'p; ls] vius dks O;fFkr le>rk gS vkSj tks ,slh ubZ vkSj egRoiw.kZ ckr ;k lk{; ds irk pyus ls tks lE;d~ rRijrk ls iz;ksx ds i'pkr~ ml le; tc fMdzh ikfjr dh xbZ Fkh ;k vkns'k fd;k x;k Fkk] mlds Kku esa ugha Fkk ;k mlds }kjk is'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] ;k fdlh Hkwy ;k xyrh ds dkj.k tks vfHkys[k ds ns[kus ls gh izdV gksrh gks ;k fdlh vU; i;kZIr dkj.k ls og pkgrk gS fd mlds fo:) ikfjr fMdzh ;k fd, x, vkns'k dk iqufoZyksdu fd;k tk, og ml U;k;ky; ls fu.kZ; ds iqufoZyksdu ds fy, vkosnu dj ldsxk ftlus og fMdzh ikfjr dh Fkh ;k og vkns'k fd;k FkkA "" 6- mDr izko/kku esa ls fdl va'k ds vk/kkj ij iqufoZyksdu pkgk x;k gS ;g crkus esa fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ vleFkZ jgs gS vkSj Lohdkj fd;k fd mDr esa ls fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij iqufoZyksdu gsrq vkosnu izLrqr ugh fd;k x;kA " 7. The learned trial court has further observed that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the counsel for the appellants made before the Court on 12.10.2012 and it cannot be said that the Advocate had given his consent without there being any instructions from the appellants at the time of passing of the order dated 12.10.2012. While observing this, the learned trial court has rejected the application preferred by the appellants for reviewing/recalling of the order dated 12.10.2012. 8. This Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial court in rejecting the application when the learned counsel for the appellants has agreed before the trial court that the application preferred by the appellants under Order 47 Rule 1 for reviewing/recalling of the order dated 12.10.2012 was not based on any of the grounds as envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The learned trial court has also not committed any illegality in observing that there was no reason to hold that the counsel for the appellants has given his consent without instructions from the appellants at the time of passing of the order dated 12.10.2012. The learned trial court has not rejected the application of the appellants on the ground of non-maintainability of the review application preferred by the appellants under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and, therefore, the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the appellants in Ramkaran v. Shrikishan & Ors. , and Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. (supra), are not applicable in the present controversy.In view of the above discussions, this appeal being devoid of merits, is therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******