IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2417 OF 2008 Between: Smt.Patiwada Shashikumari …Petitioner A n d Sanchana Ram Mohan Rao and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2417 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13-02-2000 in unnumbered I.A of 2007 (GR No.16308 dated 12-12-2007) in O.S.No.1347 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for review of the judgment and decree dated 05-11-2007 in O.S.No.1347 of 2004, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and also for consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the road laid in the suit property and also for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement and contested the suit. D-3 and D-4 remained ex parte. After full-fledged trail, the suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and that she is entitled for removal of the road and also for damages from D-3 and D-4 in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The suit was decreed against D-3 and D-4 and the same was dismissed against D-1 and D-2. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A in G.R.No.16308 seeking review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 4. A perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the trial Court has granted the relief only against D-3 and D-4 but not against D-1 and D-2. The suit was accordingly decreed against D-3 and D-4 and dismissed against D-1 and D-2. The decree was drafted in accordance with the judgment. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are certain adverse observations made in the judgment even against D-1 and D-2 but the trial Court erroneously dismissed the suit against them instead of decreeing the same. If the plaintiff was aggrieved over the dismissal of the suit against D-1 and D-2, she ought to have preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree. It is not a case where the plaintiff seeks correction of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or that there has been a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which he could not produce during the trial. The grounds of review as envisaged under order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are not at all attracted to the facts of the present case. Though the plaintiff sought relief against all the defendants, the trial Court has granted the same only as against D-3 and D-4 and dismissed the suit against D-1 and D-2. The question of review of the judgment in terms of order XLVII Rule 1 CPC does not, therefore, arise. The impugned order dismissing the application does not, therefore, call for any interference. It is open to the petitioner/plaintiff to avail other remedies, if any, available under law. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th June, 2011 Lrkm.