IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21ST) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Review AS MP No.1729 of 2009 in AS No. 3011 of 1990 Between: Nirmala Baheti … Petitioner/R.1 And: M/s Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Review AS MP No.1729 of 2009 in AS No. 3011 of 1990 ORDER: Heard. This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 23.07.2007 in AS No.3011 of 1990 wherein the said appeal filed by the first respondent herein, was allowed in part and consequently, the suit is decreed against the first defendant for a sum of Rs.3771.96 with proportionate costs and interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of realization. 2. The finding of the trial Court with regard to dismissal of the suit against 2nd defendant was confirmed. The said judgment was delivered on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The present review petition is filed by the first respondent in the appeal i.e., plaintiff on the ground that clause 10 of the agreement Ex.A.1 is not properly interpreted and the admission of DW.1 in the cross- examination that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the agent had notified those terms and conditions to the appellant’s husband at the time of entering into the contract, is over looked. According to the review petitioner, conditions printed on the certificate in small letters are not brought to the notice of contracting parties at the time of the contract entered into and hence, the conditions printed on the over leaf do not become part of the contract and they cannot be enforced. 3. The said contention was raised and considered in the appeal and the same was negatived holding that Ex.A.1 was issued to the certificate holder on 15.01.1982 duly incorporating the conditions on the back of it, but the certificate was issued subject to the conditions prominently printed on the front page of Ex.A.1 and the certificate holder never raised any objection during his life time for the said conditions, though he was alive more than three years after he received Ex.A.1 and under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased-certificate holder was not aware of the terms and conditions printed on the back of Ex.A.1 or that he did not agree for them. The decision relied upon by the petitioner herein/plaintiff in ‘Special Secretary of Rajasthan vs. Venkataramana Seshaiyer’ (AIR 1984 AP 5) was considered and it was held not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, it is not the case of any mistake or error apparent on the face of record i.e., sought to be corrected and review petition is virtually seeking a reversal of the finding already recorded on merits, which is not permissible under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 4. 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.’ 5. 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’. 6. 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.” 7. 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. 8. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.02.2011 bss [1] AIR 1979 SC 1047 [2] AIR 1964 SC 1372 [3] AIR 2004 (Madras) 512