JUDGMENT : Krishna S. Dixit, J. 1. The Review Petitioners not being the parties eo nomine to the subject writ petition that was disposed off vide judgment dated 31.01.2014 are seeking its recall. The Writ Petitioner being the 1st respondent in the said review petition having participated in the hearing of this Review Petition signified his "No Objection" for allowing the Review Petition. However, the respondent Smt. Sarojamma in this Review Petition was personally present before the Court and made her submissions. So did the respondent G. Nagaraja. 2. Review petitioners have filed application supported by an affidavit specifically mentioning the circumstances for approaching the Court with delay of 1275 days. Their version that they were not in the know of the judgment now sought to be reviewed, gains prima facie acceptance in the absence of its controversion and the material to the contrary placed on record. The statements made by the respondent Smt. Sarojamma lends credence to the case of the Review Petitioners. 3. This Review Petition is not a review as contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, stricto sensu. When a party does not have knowledge of the proceedings instituted clandestinely, the lapse of time between the passing of the order made therein which is sought to be reviewed and the filing of the Review Petition ordinarily pales into insignificance, especially when fraud and duplicity are alleged. Therefore delay & laches in filing the Review Petition stand condoned. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Shri D.L.N. Rao appearing for the counsel on record for the petitioners sought review/recall of the subject judgment arguing: (a) that the subject judgment was clandestinely obtained without making the Review Petitioners a party to the writ petition; had the Review Petitioners been arrayed as parties, they would have revealed the true facts eventually in all probability leading to dismissal of the same. (b) the proceedings in the writ petition were collusive and to the prejudice of the Review Petitioners who have vested interest in the suit property; all the parties to the writ petition hand in glove with each other have obtained the subject judgment by fraud and duplicity and therefore the same is liable to be recalled; respondent Sarojamma has sworn to an affidavit which supports the version of the Review Petitioners. (c) all the parties to the writ petition being conspirators against the interest of the writ petitioners, they have caused filing of criminal cases against several members of the local Bar and complaints before the Karnataka State Bar Council, merely because those Advocates had represented the parties opposing their cases; they have also lodged several police complaints against the Review Petitioners herein. So arguing, he seeks allowing of the Review Petition and thereby recalling of the subject judgment. 5. As already stated above, the Writ Petitioner-Nagaraja having participated in the proceedings submitted that he has No Objection whatsoever for allowing the Review Petition. However, Mrs. Felina, (advocate by occupation) the GPA Holder of the Writ Petitioner-Jayalakshmi, sought dismissal of the Review Petition contending that: (a) the Review Petitioners being not parties eo nomine to the writ petition cannot maintain the Review Petition at all; the grounds urged by the Review Petitioners do not avail for recalling the subject judgment. (b) the Writ Petitioner having obtained the decree dated 18.07.2011 in O.S. No. 3057/2009, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the police to give protection in terms of the said decree and therefore the same cannot be faltered. (c) although complaints to police and to the Bar Council against some members of the local Bar are made, is true, it is for the jurisdictional authorities to take a call on them after investigation/enquiry and therefore that itself does not constitute a ground for reviewing the subject judgment. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the petition papers. 7. The case in W.P. No. 40026/2013 (GM-CPC) was filed by the writ petitioner Smt. Jayalakshmi against respondents Sri Nagaraja G. and Smt. Sarojamma, thus the Review Petitioners were not parties; had they been parties, they would have opposed the writ petition by narrating the contentions taken up in the writ petition that are prima facie substantiated by the evidentiary material placed on record; they have sought for leave to seek review of the subject judgment and the matter merits grant of leave in terms of the application in I.A. No. 1 of 2017 which is supported by a narrative affidavit. 8. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1963) AIR SC 1909 at para no. 8. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1963) AIR SC 1909 at para no. 8 has observed as under: 8. The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J. which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art. 226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J. was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J. affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla' J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J. 9. The Apex Court, in the case of Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, 2018 SCC Online (SC) 2573 virtually has reiterated what was laid down in Shiv Deo Singh supra. Therefore, the contention founded on Sec. 114 with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 that a person who is not a party eo nomine cannot seek review of the judgment, does not gain acceptance; for the same reason the decisions cited from the side of the Writ Petitioner in the case of Ramji Gupta Another vs. Gopi Krishan Agarwal (D) and Others, (2013) AIR SC 3099, Anuj Sharma vs. Ram Gopal, (2014) 1 Laws (Raj) 41, Mishrilal vs. Pukhraj and Others, (1975) AIR Raj. 213, do not come to her assistance. 10. 213, do not come to her assistance. 10. The writ petitioners ie., the respondents in the Review Petition have transacted with the subject property on the basis of a registered Sale Deed dated 06.05.1985 whereby the father of Review Petitioners had bought it for the benefit of the Review Petitioners who were then the minors; no saleable interest was created in favour of his wife i.e. the mother of the minors; therefore arguably the mother could not have transferred any interest in the suit property at all by virtue of nemo dat quad non habet. Much is not being deliberated on this, since the same happens to be the subject matter of some ongoing litigations. 11. After attaining majority and after learning of allegedly the fraudulent transfer and consequent suits, the petitioners have also instituted other judicial proceedings that are pending in the Courts below and before this Court as well; the outcome of these proceedings will have a direct bearing on the matter; all this could have been notified to the Co-ordinate Judge, had the petitioners been arrayed as respondents to the writ petition; even the Writ Petitioners also did not disclose the same in their pleadings and to that extent there is some culpability resting with them. 12. Sri Jagannath B.S. learned counsel who purportedly represented the Writ Petitioner Smt. Jayalakshmi has stated on oath that he had never filed power for her; the respondent Smt. Sarojamma too has sworn to an affidavit dated 02.11.2018 to the effect that the respondent Nagaraja G. had forged her signature and had filed the suit; she also states that she is not related to respondent nos. 2 and 3 at all nor are they members of her family, nor she has been in the joint possession of the suit property; she also states that the signatures appearing in the plaint, affidavit and GPA are forged scripts; this affidavit she has not disowned at all. Respondent Nagaraja G. being personally present in the Court submits that he has No Objection for recalling the subject judgment. 13. Respondent Nagaraja G. being personally present in the Court submits that he has No Objection for recalling the subject judgment. 13. The suit property is the subject matter of several on-going litigations launched by Review Petitioners, Review Respondents and others; Suits, Appeals and Revisions are fought at various levels, in respect of subject property; the police protection ordered by this Court is on the basis of an application filed in the execution of a compromise decree comprising the suit property; in such circumstances it is not desirable to have police intervention in the matter, subject to all just exceptions into which the case of the other side does not fit. There are several other provisions in CPC that avail for and facilitate the enforcement of decree sans police help. 14. The conduct of the writ petitioner in filing complaints to the police and to Bar Council against several members of the Bar merely because they represented some parties to the dispute, is highly deprecated. However, no opinion is expressed as to their consideration- worthiness since it is not within the domain of this Court. In the above circumstances, this Review Petition succeeds. The subject judgment dated 31.01.2014 having been recalled, the Writ Petition No. 40026/2013 (GM-CPC) stands dismissed. 15. However, the observations made herein above being confined to disposal of this Review Petition, shall not influence the decision making in any of the cases between the parties. No costs.