IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.137 of 2010 AVINASH KUMAR SINHA Versus SMT. USHA SINHA & ORS. ----------- 4. 19.08.2010 Heard the petitioner Avinash Kumar Sinha in person. This review application has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by me in Misc. Appeal No. 185 of 2008. It appears that the Misc. Appeal No. 185 of 2008 (Avinash Kumar Vs. Smt. Usha Sinha and others) was filed by this petitioner through his learned counsel Sri Bhuwaneshwar Prasad against the order dated 16.1.2008 passed by Sub Judge 1st Patna in Partition Suit No. 246 of 2007 dismissing the injunction application filed by the petitioner. When the Misc. Appeal was taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C., on 5.5.2010 the following order was recorded : “Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the parties are going to compromise the case itself outside the court and it is expected that they will arrive at a compromise in the next one month and the same shall be filed in the court below. On the ground mentioned above, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw this Misc. Appeal. Accordingly, this Misc. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.” 2 This review application has been filed and the petitioner appearing in person submitted that the learned counsel wrongly mentioned this fact of compromise without taking his consent and got the appeal withdrawn. The petitioner relied upon (1) AIR 1937 Patna 528 Thakur Singh Vs. Deenanath Shah (2) AIR 1985 Madhya Pradesh 87 Punjab National Bank Vs. Devi Ram and others (3) AIR 1957 Andhra Pradesh 481 Gangamma Vs. Venkanna. From the perusal of the decision reported in AIR 1937 Patna 528 it appears that in that case it was held that the appeal which has been withdrawn must be treated as if it had never been preferred within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 and, therefore, review against the judgment/order is maintainable. Likewise the facts of the other cases are totally different and do not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the ground raised in the review application by the petitioner in person is a matter between the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on his behalf in the Misc. Appeal and, therefore, it is not a ground available to the petitioner for review. On this ground this Court cannot review the order passed in Misc. Appeal on 5.5.2010. Accordingly, I find no merit in this review application as such it is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J)