HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Review SAMP No.1578 of 2011 in SA No.313 of 1997 ORDER: This review application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the judgment dated 07.06.2011 in SA No.313 of 1997, where under the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent herein filed suit OS No.666 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kurnool for permanent injunction, restraining the appellant herein/defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit building. By judgment dated 06.08.1993, the said suit was dismissed. On appeal in AS No.51 of 1993, the learned III Additional District Judge, by judgment dated 07.12.1996 allowed the appeal setting aside the trial court’s decree and judgment and consequently decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred the second appeal. By judgment dated 07.06.2011, which is under review, this court dismissed the second appeal on merits, holding that the suit for injunction is maintainable and the impugned judgment of the first appellate court decreeing the suit is not liable to be interfered with. The learned Additional District Judge, made endorsement, observing that grant of injunction does not operate to confer any legal title on the plaintiff in respect of the suit land and such a title could only be acquired by a registered sale deed as stipulated under section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. 4. The petitioner herein seeks review of the judgment in the second appeal, mainly on the ground that the protection under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, is available only to the defendant and not to the plaintiff. The said contention of the appellant was considered in detail with reference to the various decisions cited by both sides. The decisions referred to in the grounds of review are considered in the judgment and the petitioner is virtually seeking re-hearing of the appeal under the guise of the review application, which is not permissible. 5. As held in a catena of the decisions by the apex court and this court, the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited and confined to the grounds mentioned therein. It is not a case where there has been any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor is a case of discovery of new and important matter, which could not be urged earlier inspite of due diligence, which justifies the review. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, when an equal and efficacious relief is available to the plaintiff, injunction cannot be granted and failure of the counsel to bring to the notice of the court about the said provision is an error apparent on the face of record. There cannot be any dispute regarding statutory provision contained in section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Following the decision of the apex court in ‘Shrimant Shamrao Suryavanshi’s case [AIR 2002 SC 960], as also other decisions relied upon by the respondent and referred to in the judgment, it was held that the suit for injunction was maintainable. It cannot therefore be said that there was any error apparent on the face of the record so as to bring the same within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds for review of the judgment in second appeal in terms of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 7. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 13.12.2012 bss