IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.158 of 2009 BAL GOVIND SAH & ORS Versus RAM NATH SAH & ORS ----------- 6. 6.4.2011 This review petition has been filed by the opposite parties of C.R. No. 805 of 2009 on various grounds including that the amendment which was directed to be made by this Court by allowing the civil revision simply could not have been directed to be made in the light of the very averment of the petitioners of the civil revision petition both in their plaint as also in the evidence of petitioner no. 1 Ram Nath Sah who was plaintiff no.1 in Title Suit No. 293 of 2000. During the course of hearing of the present review petition, copies of the plaint as also that of the written statement have been produced and the evidence which was given by opposite party no.1 herein, namely, Ram Nath Sah in the trial court has also been produced. It is stated clearly in the plaint in paragraph 2 as also by appending the genealogical table that Kallu Sah was the great grand father of plaintiff no.1 Ram Nath Sah one of the petitioners in the civil revision petition. It was stated that Kallu Sah had three sons, Sheobaran Sah, Sheo Narayan Sah and Ramdas Sah, whereas, the defendants’ case was that it was not Kallu Sah rather it was Kanu Teli who was recorded in the Cadastral Survey as tenant in respect of the land and he had two sons, namely, Sheobaran Sah and Sheo Narayan Sah and both of them did not have any offspring and that Ram 2 Nath Sah plaintiff no.1 and others were simply strangers to the genealogical table and the family members of Kanu Teli and they have filed a false case. This fact has been admitted by Ram Nath Sah also that Kallu Sah was his great grand father and it was not Kanu Teli. It was after the amendment made by the defendants which was allowed by order dated 25.4.2005 by the court below that the plaintiffs had changed their stand and that too after the evidence of Ram Nath Sah was recorded. These facts were missing from being considered by me while passing the order on 21.5.2009 in Civil Revision No. 805 of 2009. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cites grounds on which any order which is not appealable could be reviewed by the court which had passed that order. One of the grounds on which any such order could be reviewed is an error apparent on the face of record. I have discussed the material facts of the case as appearing from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of Ram Nath Sah recorded under Order 18 Rule 4 C.P.C. These were the facts which were germane for the purpose of reviewing the order and considering that I find that order dated 21.5.2009 was passed in ignorance of some of the admitted facts which were available on record of the lower court through the pleadings as also from the evidence of Ram Nath Sah. In that view of the matter, I hereby review order dated 21.5.2009 holding that there was no reason for interfering 3 with order dated 15.4.2009 passed by Sub-Judge I, Babhua in T.S. No. 293 of 2000. In the result, the review petition is allowed and Civil Revision No. 805 of 2009 stands dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)