HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Review CRP MP No.3893 of 2011 in CRP No.4245 of 2010 ORDER: This application is filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking review of the order dated 08.04.2011 in CRP No.4245 of 2010. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit against the respondents 2 to 4 for declaration that the proceedings No.70/35- 88/B/9-5-1979 dated 24.03.1980 issued by the 3rd respondent- GHMC in respect of the schedule property is null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property-II and the front portion of the land to an extent of 100 square yards situate at Chapel Road, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein filed application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to get impleaded as 4th defendant in the suit. The said application IA No.80 of 2009 was allowed on 07.07.2010. The first respondent- plaintiff filed revision in CRP No.4245 of 2010 assailing the said order, impleading the review petitioner herein as 4th defendant. By order dated 08.04.2011, this Court allowed the said revision, holding that the petitioner herein is not necessary or proper party to the suit and the impugned order permitting his impleadment is unsustainable. The proposed 4th defendant-first respondent in the revision filed the present review petition. 4. A perusal of the grounds for review would disclose that under the guise of the present application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the petitioner is virtually reagitating the whole issue, which was subject matter of the revision petition. The para meters for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are well settled. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a review can be sought on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. It is not the case of discovery of any new or important matter or evidence subsequent to passing of the order under review. It is also not the case of the petitioner that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 5. In ‘Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma[1]’ the apex Court held as follows: “The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.’ 6. In ‘Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh[2]’ the Apex Court held that ‘a review is by no means an appeal in disguise ‘whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error’. 7. In ‘B. Dhanalakshmi vs. M. Shajahan[3]’ the Apex Court held as follows: “…From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is well settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not on erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order 47, rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The said power cannot be exercised as is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’ A review application also cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. Similarly, the error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error, which must strike one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points, where there may conceivably be two opinions.” 8. The grounds on which the review is sought do not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and in the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions; the present application for review is not maintainable. Since all the contentions raised in the present review application, have already been canvassed during hearing of the revision and taken into consideration while disposing of the revision petition, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds for review of the order in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 24.08.2011 bss [1] AIR 1979 SC 1047 [2] AIR 1964 SC 1372 [3] AIR 2004 (Madras) 512