IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.140 of 2010 CHHEDI LAL PARSURAM JPURIYA . Versus SMT. SUNINA DEVI & ORS. . ----------- 11. 09.03.2011. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Waliur Rehman on behalf of the petitioner. (2) This review application has been filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 04.05.2010 passed by me in M.A. No.471 of 2009. (3) It appears that status quo order was passed by the learned Court below on 31.05.1996 on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. Subsequently, Misc. case was filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2(A) C.P.C. alleging that the status quo order has been violated and the opposite parties sold the properties by sale deed dated 23rd February, 2006. After hearing and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Court below rejected the said Misc. case holding that the opposite party has not violated any specific order. Against the said order, the Misc. Appeal No.471 of 2009 was filed. After hearing the parties, I dismissed the said appeal by order dated 04.05.2010. (4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the order, it was observed that sale deed was executed on 23.12.1996 and the Misc. case has been filed after 10 years in 2006 and, therefore, M.A. was dismissed. It is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. So far this submission is concerned, it appears that the petitioner 2 specifically mentioned at paragraph 8 of the memo of appeal that the sale deed was executed on 23.02.1996 by the opposite party No.1. It may be mentioned here that an affidavit in support of this statement has also been filed with the memo of appeal. Now, the learned counsel submitted that it is typing mistake. Be that as it may, from perusal of the order passed by me, it appears that that is not the ground for dismissal of the Misc. Appeal. Even if, it is held that sale deed is dated 23rd Feb., 1996 then also on that ground alone, the order cannot be reviewed. It is only a typing mistake. Now, if it is corrected then also it can be said that a wrong observation that Misc. case has been filed after 10 years has been made. As stated above mainly, it has been dismissed on the ground mentioned at paragraph 10 of the order passed by me. (5) The learned counsel further submitted that the decision cited by the petitioner, i.e., A.I.R. 1994 (S.C.) 1837 has not been properly appreciated while passing the order by me. So far this submission is concerned also, in my opinion, none consideration of the decision properly or wrongly or wrong interpretation of the same is not a ground for review. (6) I, therefore, find that this review application has got no merit and accordingly this review application is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)