JUDGMENT V.K.Sharma, J. (Oral) CWP (T) No.3040 of 2008, Rajeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & others filed by review petitioner Rajeev Kumar and CWP (T) No.3754 of 2008, Ranjit Singh & ors Vs. State of HP & ors filed by review petitioner Ranjit Singh and two others, were disposed of vide identical orders each dated 23.11.2010. Operative part of the order in CWP (T) No.3040 of 2008 reads as under:- “In view of the above replies, in case the petitioner has any grievance surviving with regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter, it will be open to him to approach respondents No. 1 to 3/competent authority along with copy of this judgment within one month from today, who shall consider and finally decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, if so desired.” 2. On a plain reading of the above order dated 23.11.2010, it is manifest that the grievance(s) raised in the writ petitions were not adjudicated upon on merits and instead the petitioners therein out of whom some are the review petitioners before this court in these proceedings, were granted liberty to approach respondents 1 to 3/competent authority for redressal of any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter with a direction to the said respondents/competent authority to decide the same within another three months after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner(s), if so desired. 3. However, the grievance raised by the review petitioners in these review petitions is that they all through intended to have a verdict on merits and were expecting justice from the court through adjudication. However, according to them when the matters were heard and disposed of on 23.11.2010, they were not present in the court and as the matters had appeared only in 3rd supplementary list in the evening just before the court was to close for the day, the matters appear to have been disposed of in a hurry. 4. Per contra, the prayer for review is opposed on behalf of the respondents on the plea that the review petitioners have failed to make out a case for review and there is no lawful cause or basis to review the judgments dated 23.11.2010 under order 47 Rule 1 read with section 114 CPC. 5. 4. Per contra, the prayer for review is opposed on behalf of the respondents on the plea that the review petitioners have failed to make out a case for review and there is no lawful cause or basis to review the judgments dated 23.11.2010 under order 47 Rule 1 read with section 114 CPC. 5. After noticing the respective contentions raised on behalf of the parties and without going into an elaborate discussion of the same, suffice it to say that justice should not only be done but also appear to have been done. Keeping in view this laudable principle of law in mind and by taking recourse to that part of order 47 Rule 1, which empowers the court to review its decree or order against which an appeal has not been filed as in these cases, “for any other sufficient reason”, I am more than satisfied that it shall not be unsafe and would rather be in the interest of justice to grant the prayer of the review petitioners for review of the aforesaid judgments dated 23.11.2010 in CWP (T) No. 3040 of 2008 and CWP (T) No. 3754 of 2008. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, judgments dated 23.11.2010 in CWP (T) No. 3040 of 2008 and CWP (T) No. 3754 of 2008 shall stand reviewed and thus non est for all intents and purposes. The review petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.