1..... M.C.C.No.2620 of 2006 Shiv Prasad State of M.P. & ors 16.09.2011 Shri Pranay Verma, Counsel for the applicants. This petition is filed seeking review of judgment dated 28.9.2006 passed in F.A.249/92. It is stated that the statement made by the counsel which is recorded in the first paragraph of the judgment is not correct. The applicants herein had never instructed the counsel to make such a statement. It is submitted that after recalling the judgment and decree the matter may be heard on merit. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, we have perused the judgment passed by the Single Judge in F.A.249/92 in para 1 of the judgment. The learned Single Judge (who has demitted the office) has recorded the following contention :- “ Learned counsel for the appellants fairly conceded that the appeal would be having no force unless the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 15.3.1993 is allowed.” It appears that after recording the aforesaid statement the learned Single Judge had considered the application on merits and found that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was without any basis as the documents filed alongwith the application were not required for the adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter and cannot be permitted to be taken on record as additional evidence. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the application in para 15 of the judgment, dismissed the appeal in consequence of dismissal of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. We cannot re-examine the aforesaid order on merits in our review jurisdiction, even on the contention of the applicants that the 2..... M.C.C.No.2620 of 2006 Shiv Prasad State of M.P. & ors 16.09.2011 statement which is recorded by the Single Bench in para 1 of the judgment was not correct. Apart from this, the matter was before the same Judge on four occasions and it was got adjourned. Meaning thereby that the same Judge who had decided the appeal was not convinced with the contention of the applicants in respect of the averments made in para 1 of the judgment. No affidavit of Shri A.Usmani , counsel is filed along with the application in support of the contention of the applicants that such statement was not made before the Court. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this review petition. This review petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE vj