JUDGMENT Virender Singh, C.J. – The petitioner who was appellant in L.P.A. No.249 of 2016 has preferred the instant review petition seeking review of the order dated 14.06.2016 passed in L.P.A. No.248 of 2016 and connected appeals taking certain pleas spelt out in the review petition. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the documents which would establish legal possession of the petitioner over the disputed land were not within the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, in the earlier proceeding those documents could not be brought on record. The only contention of the learned counsel is that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the land in question is Railways' property, after dismissal of L.P.A. No.249 of 2016 would be deemed to have been affirmed by the Division Bench and this would seriously prejudice the petitioner in as much as, he cannot even institute a suit seeking declaration of his right, title and interest over the disputed land. 4. Opposing the review petition, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways contends that the present review petition is an appeal in disguise and the whole attempt of the petitioner is to stay over the Railways' property. Disputing the plea taken by the petitioner that the documents which have been filed along with the review petition were not within his knowledge, the learned counsel submits that on the face of the pleadings before the Writ Court as well as before the Letters Patent Court, such plea is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel submits that the present review petition may be decided on its merits without taking counter-affidavit from the respondent-Railways. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and after perusing the documents on record, we are of the opinion that the doors cannot be closed on the petitioner and if law permits, the said remedy cannot be foreclosed. Referring to the Pleader Commissioner's report, the learned Single Judge held that "the petitioners are illegal encroachers over the railway land." Now, the petitioner has produced a copy of unregistered sale-deed dated 28.02.1945, Raiyati Parcha issued by the State of Bihar and photo copy of Khatiyan provided to the petitioner on 24.05.2016 to claim his ownership over the land in question. 6. 6. However, disputing genuineness of these documents, learned counsel for the respondent-Railways submits that the petitioner is required to prove these documents by leading cogent evidence and mere affidavit of the petitioner is not sufficient and that can be done only in a proceeding in the Civil Court. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no doubt had remedy to approach the Civil Court however, in view of the notice dated 10/11-03-2016 whereby, the petitioner was granted only one week's time to vacate the land bearing Plot No.177/232 under Khata No.2, Ward No.-5, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to approach this Court in the writ petition. 7. In "Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others" reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that; "…. it cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of Justice. Law has to bend before justice...." 8. No doubt, the documents produced by the petitioner in the present proceeding cannot be considered, at this stage, as conclusive proof of his title over the land in question and therefore, no substantial relief can be granted to the petitioner. However, at the same time, considering the nature of the documents produced by the petitioner, the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to get his right, title and interest adjudicated through the Civil Court. The order dated 14.06.2016 under review is hereby clarified to the extent that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge would be treated as prima-facie finding of fact based on the Pleader Commissioner's report and the same shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner in a proceeding, if any, instituted by the petitioner in the Civil Court. 9. The Review Petition stands disposed of, with the aforesaid clarification. 10. At this stage, Mr. Indrajit Sinha states that only yesterday the petitioner has lost his daughter. To this, Mr. Mahesh Tewari instantly responded by making a statement at the Bar that till next two weeks after the time granted by this Court, the petitioner would not be evicted. We expect that a similar benefit would be extended to other appellants in L.P.A. No.248 of 2016 and L.P.A. No.250 of 2016. Petition disposed.