IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.254 of 2010 SMT. MADHU VERMA Versus SMT. URMILA DEVI & ANR. ----------- 04. 12.01.2011 Heard Mr. Jashwir Singh Arora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in admission matter. (2) The plaintiff-appellant has filed this review application for reviewing the judgment dated 4.8.2010 passed by me in First Appeal No.581 of 1999 dismissing the First Appeal. (3) The plaintiff-appellant has filed title suit no.296 of 1996/20 of 1998 for a decree for specific performance of contract. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance. The plaintiff, against the said judgment of the trial court filed the said First Appeal before this Court. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the pleadings and evidences and materials available on record, this Court by judgment dated 4th August, 2010 dismissed the First Appeal. (4) The learned counsel Mr. Arora submitted that while dismissing the First Appeal in the impugned judgment, this Court did not consider the provision as contained in Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. According to the learned counsel, it was the duty of the 2 seller to disclose his title and also to produce the title deed for examination by the purchaser and the purchaser has right to demand title deed. The learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the said right, the purchaser was demanding the gift deed by which the seller i.e. the defendant-respondent acquired title to the suit property but on that ground alone, the plaintiff- appellant’s appeal has been dismissed without considering the right of the purchaser as contained in Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act. Except this, no other question has been raised. (5) From the above contention of the learned counsel, it is clear that the only question raised is that this Court did not consider Section 55 of the T.P.Act. It is well settled principles of law that the provisions as contained in Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 C.P.C. i.e. exercise of power of review constitute an exception to the general rule that when once a judgment is signed and pronounced, it cannot be afterward altered and hence, a right of review is exercisable only where the circumstances are distinctly covered by the statutory exception. This rule i.e. Order 47 Rule 1 is itself definitive of the limits within which a review is permitted by the Court. In the present case, the ground raised by the plaintiff-petitioner i.e. non- consideration of a particular provision can neither be 3 termed as the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due negligence was not within his knowledge nor it can be termed as error apparent on the face of the record. Further, on the same set of facts and evidence, in review, the appeal cannot be re-heard and moreover, in the instant case, the learned counsel who is appearing in this review application never appeared in the First Appeal on behalf of the appellant. It is also well settled that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1. The learned counsel for the appellant could not properly explain the legal position at the time of hearing of the First Appeal, cannot be a ground for review of the judgment because the Court cannot have an inherent power of review. No new fact has been introduced except that the learned counsel has been changed. Same very argument has been advanced which was advanced at the time of hearing of the First Appeal. Only because in the judgment, it has not been specifically mentioned by me that I have considered Section 55 of the T.P.Act, on that ground alone, it cannot be said that the principles envisaged was neither argued nor it was considered. Moreover, even if, it cannot be said that it was not considered, then also, an erroneous view of law on a debatable point cannot be 4 considered to be errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore, review is not permissible. (6) In view of the above consideration, I am of the view that this review application is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Saurabh (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)