Allahabad High Court
Mansoor Ahmad Khan And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30571
Court No. - 7
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 70 of 2025
Applicant :- Mansoor Ahmad Khan And Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashid Ali,Israr Ahmad Ansari
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard.
2. Present review application under Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred by the petitioner in relation to final judgment and order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 13612 of 2021 (Mansoor Ahmad Khan And Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Others) which reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 6 in the Court today, which is taken on record.
The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby to quashing impugned order passed by the A.D.M. (Revenue & Finance) Lucknow in Case No. 318/343/ 15-16 Inderpal Versus State of U.P. & others dated 30.07.2016 and order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow in Revision No. 2358 of 2006 Mansoor Ahmad & others Versus Indrapal Singh & others in the interest of justice.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding & directing the opposite parties not to implement the impugned orders of Annexure No. 1 & 2 dated 30.07.2016 and 09.12.2016 respectively."
The impugned order dated 30.07.2016 has been passed by respondent No. 4/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Lucknow (in short "Magistrate") in Case No. 318/343/ 15-16 (Inderpal Versus State of U.P. & others), which was filed in terms of Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act of 1901") with regard to Gata No. 705.
It would be apt to indicate at this stage that the petitioners are the co-sharers of Gata No. 705/0.892 Hectare and the application under Section 28 of the Act of 1901 for correction of map in terms of area of Gata No. 705 indicated in revenue records i.e. 0.892 Hectare was preferred by another co-sharer namely Indra Pal Singh (respondent No. 6 herein) and for disposal of the said application, a report was called and based upon the said report and also taking note of the relevant records, the Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 30.07.2016, which is extracted hereunder:-
"???????? ??? ?? ????????? ????????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? 28 ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???????? ????????? ???? ?????? 9-1-2015 ?? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? 705 ????? ??? ???? 0.892 ??0 ??? ?? ????/ ???????? ???? ?????? 705 ? ???? 0.405 ?? ? ???? ?????? 713 ???? 0.0320 ??0 ???? ????? ? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? 705 ?? ?, ?, ?, ?,?. ??? ?????? ???? ????-??? ?????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ???????? 705 ? ???? 0.4050 ??? ?? ? ???? ?????? 713 ?? ???? 0.320 ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? 705 ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ? ???? ?? 713 ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??, ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???? 0.405 ??? ? ???? ?????? 713 ?? ???? 0.0320 ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?????/??????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????-705 ?? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ?? 705 ? ?? ???? 0.405 ??? ?? ??????? ???? ? ???? ?????? 713 ?? ?? ???? 0.0320 ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????
(2) ?? ?? ?? ????????, ????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? / ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? / ?????? ???? ????? ?????? 10-7-2015 ??? ???? ?????? 705,706,707,713,714 ?? ?????????? ????????? ? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ??? ???/???? ?? ????????? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????????????? ???? ?????? 705 ?? ??????? 0.117 ???, 713 ?? ??????? 0.028 ??0 ? 714 ?? ??????? 0.030 ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? 706 ?? ??????? 0.002 ? 707 ?? ??????? 0.125 ??0 ???? ??? ??, ???? ?????? 706 ???????????? ? ???? ?????? 707 ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????????? 0.249 ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????????? 0.239 ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ????? 0.366 ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? 706 ? 707 ?? 0.117 ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? 707 ? 706 ?? ?????? ? ?? ? 1-62 ??? ?????? ? 2-?3 60 ??? ?????? ? ?? ? 2-19 ??? ?????? ? 1 ?? ?3 11 ??? ? ?????? ? 1-?? 12 ??? ????? ?1-?? 43 ??? ??? ??? ????????? 0.117 ??0 ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? 0.249 ??? ?? ???????? ? ???????????? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? 705 ? ????????? 0.405 405 ??? ?? 0.117 ??0 ????????? ???? ?????? 706 ? 707 ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ? ? 2 2 ?? ?3-38 ??? ?3-?4-20 ??? ? 2 ?? ?6-60 ??? ?????? ??1 ?? ??2-48 ??? ?????? ? 5 ?? ??2 - 20 ??0 ?????? ?? ?? ??1-32 ??? ?? 0.146 ??0 ????????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ?+? 2+? 6+? 1+??+?? ?? 0.117 ??? ?2?6+?5+?4+? 3 ?? 0.142 ??? ? ?????? ??+?5+??2+??1 ?? 0.146 ??0 ??? 0.405 ??0 ????????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?+??+??+??1+??2+? 4+? 3+? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? 713 ?? ????? ?? ????????- 711,712,714 ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? 713 ??? ????? 0.028 ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???
??????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? / ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????
???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????
??? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???-??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? 705/0.892 ??0 ??? ??????? ?? ??? 0.117 ??? ??? ???? ?????? 707/0.0125 ??0 ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???????/??????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???
???????? ?? ????? ?????? 10-7-2015/????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???
??????? ???????? ????????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? 28 ???????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????????????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???
??? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????????/????? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????/??????? ?????????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????????/???????? ????? ?? ????? / ??????? ??????? (?????? ?????????) ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????? ????? ???"
The order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Magistrate was challenged by means of Revision No. C-201610002358 (Mansoor Ahmad & others Versus Indrapal Singh & others), which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 09.12.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow (in short "Revisional Authority"). The relevant portion of the order dated 09.12.2016 is extracted hereunder:-
"5- ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????????? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? 176 ????????? ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? 28 ?????????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ???????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??????????? ????? ???-??? ????????? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????????????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????? ???, ?? ??????? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ??? ???????????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ? ????????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ?????????????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???
??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?????"
It would also be relevant to indicate here that a suit for partition in terms of Gata No. 705 area 0.892 Hectare was also instituted by the respondent No. 6/Indra Pal Singh, which was registered as Case No. 11969/2018, Computerized Case No. T201810460411969 (Indra Pal Singh Versus Mansoor Ahmad & others) and the same has been decided by the revenue court of first instance vide order dated 06.04.2024.
Indisputedly, during consolidation proceedings, Gata No. 705/0.892 Hectare was indicated as Gata No. 705 Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, Da, however, actual partition has not been carried out at the spot till date. It is for this reason the suit for partition with regard to Gata No. 705 was filed by the respondent No. 6 impleading therein all the necessary parties and the same has been dismissed after observing that the same is not maintainable, as would appear from the copy of the order dated 06.04.2024 placed before this Court, which is taken on record. The relevant portion of the order dated 06.04.2024 is extracted hereunder:-
"???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? 705 ? ?? ???? ????? ????? ? ???? ??????? ? ??????? 01 ????? 30 ???? ??????????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ?????? ??????-05 ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? 2016 ?? ???? 26 ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???????/????????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? 2006 ?? ???? 30 (2) ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ???? ?????? 705 ? ???????? ??, ????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???? 116 ?????? ?????? ?????? 2006 ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ????? ?????????? ???"
It is also not in dispute that area of Gata No. 705 i.e. 0.892 Hectare indicated in the map was not in terms of area indicated in the Khatauni and the same has been corrected.
Considering the aforesaid, this Court finds that the petitioners are not the aggrieved party. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition filed assailing the impugned orders dated 30.07.2016 and 09.12.2016 on various grounds including the ground of opportunity of hearing. The petition is accordingly dismissed."
3. The grounds for seeking review of judgment and order dated 23.04.2025 taken in the present application, are extracted hereinunder:-
"(A) Because, learned Court below neither accepted the application for impleadment nor rejected the same and this Hon'ble Court did not appreciate this aspect of the matter which is apparent on the face of record.
(B) Because, the petitioners filed the impleadment application on 13.07.2016 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) but the learned court below neither allowed the said application nor rejected the same and the Hon'ble Court has not given any finding in respect thereof.
(C) Because, in the Gata No. 705 mi area 0.892 hectare the primary school is running and some part thereof belongs to forest land and other persons including the petitioners have also as a co-sharer and as such without proper physical allocation of each co-sharer the map cannot be corrected legally.
(D) Because, under the provision of section-30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code "the Minjumla number shall be divided physically in the manner prescribed and revenue recorded including map and Khasra shall be corrected accordingly.
(E) Because, neither the shares of all co-sharers has been divided physically to show any shortfall in the land Gata No. 705mi area 0.892 hectare and as such the petitioners are aggrieved persons.
(F) Because, according to the spot inspection report dated-10.07.2015 submitted by the Tehsildar Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow there was a surplus land 0.002 & 0.125 hectares in the Gata No. 706/0.051 and Gata No. 707/0.188 hectare respectively whereas in the Gata No. 705/0.892 hectare there was shortfall of 0.117 hectare. Inspite of this fact in pursuance of the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below the map has been corrected from the holding of the petitioners land Gata No. 705M/0.892 hectare and as such the petitioners are aggrieved persons."
4. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below:
?20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words ?any other sufficient reason? has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18 to mean ?a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule?. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.25,.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:?
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.?
5. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.
6. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, observed as under:-
9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) ?a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result??? A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.?
10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very pivotal observations:?
?9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ?reheard and corrected?. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ?an appeal in disguise.?
12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.
14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), this Court reiterated the law and held that:?
?15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.?
15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:?
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ?reheard and corrected.?
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ?an appeal in disguise.?
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
7. In the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as ?for any other sufficient reason?. The said phrase has been explained to mean ?a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule? (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius)."
8. Upon due consideration of the grounds as also the law related to review petition, according to which the review is by no means an appeal in disguise and the scope of review is limited as also the judgment dated 23.04.2025, this Court finds no force in the present review petition for the reasons that while passing the judgment dated 23.04.2025, this Court considered all the relevant facts of the case pleaded before this Court. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.5.2025
(Manoj K.)
