IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No.52 of 2007. Date of decision: 5.4.2008. Parkash Chand …….petitioner Vs. Smt. Bohlu Devi & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : None Kuldip Singh, Judge. ( oral) The petitioner has filed this review petition for reviewing judgment dated 12.7.2007 passed by this Court in RSA No.179 of 1992, on the grounds that this Court has not decided the substantial question of law, as to whether in the absence of any definite finding with regard to the competency of a Revenue Assistant who decided the matter earlier vide order dated 28.5.1915 Ex.P-12 issue of res- judicata can be decided against the appellants by the learned first appellate Court. It has also been submitted that jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant of the erstwhile Mandi State to adjudicate upon the status of a person has also not been decided in the judgment dated 12.7.2007. The document Ex.DW-7/A Iqbalnama has not been considered in the judgment which is relevant in deciding substantial question of law No.4. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes …2… 2. In para-15 of the judgment, the order dated 28.5.1915 Ex.P-12 has been noticed and it has been further observed that even if order dated 28.5.1915 Ex.P-12 is not sufficient for invoking the principle of res-judicata but still can be used as a piece of evidence alongwith other oral and documentary evidence on record to show that Ganu was not son of Raghu. The document Ex.DW-7/A dated 6.5.1952 has been noticed in para-12 and para-14 of the judgment wherein it has been observed that Ex.DW-7/A is not binding on the plaintiffs The submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is nothing but to re-hear the appeal by projecting order dated 28.5.1915 Ex.P-12 and document Ex.DW-7/A dated 6.5.1952 which is not the scope of the review, there is no error apparent on the face of record, hence petition dismissed. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. April 5, 2008 (sks)