IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review Petition No. 7 of 2009. Date of decision: 15.3.2010. Dev Raj & anr. ….. Petitioners. Vs. Smt. Krishni & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. G.D.Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The defendants- petitioners have filed the present review petition for reviewing the judgement dated 19.12.2008 passed by this court in RSA No. 237 of 1998 and in Cross-objection No. 218 of 1999. Mr. G.D.Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the review petitioners has submitted that this court has not properly considered the jurisdiction of civil court in the judgement dated 19.12.2008. He has also submitted that question of acquiescence and consent with respect to construction of house on the suit land has also not been properly considered. The further submission of the learned Senior Advocate is that the pleadings in the Muffasil courts are loosely drafted, therefore, the pleadings of the Muffasil courts are required to be interpreted liberally. He has also submitted that Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… question of market value of the land under the house has also not been properly taken into consideration by this court in the judgement for which review petition has been filed. On these grounds, the learned Senior Advocate has submitted that judgement dated 19.12.2008 requires review. 2. On the contrary, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 has submitted that this court has appreciated the material on record. It is not the case of review petitioners that some material evidence, which goes to the root of the case, has not been considered or there is error apparent on the face of record. He has submitted that there is no ground for reviewing of judgement dated 19.12.2008. 3. The submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate are primarily to the effect that pleadings and evidence have not been properly appreciated by this court. It has not been submitted that some important evidence having bearing on the merits of the case has been ignored or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration. The grievance raised on behalf of review petitioners that finding of facts cannot be reversed in the second appeal is not a ground for reviewing the judgement. In case the review petitioners are aggrieved by the judgement dated 19.12.2008, then they have remedy against the judgement in accordance with law but not by way of present review petition. 4. There is no merit in the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed. March 15, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.