IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.275 of 2010 BASUDEO LOHAR SON OF CHANDRIKA MISTRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAHNA, P.O. & P.S- HASPURA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD. . . . . . APPELLANT. Versus RAM DULARI DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE GOPAL LOHAR AND WIFE OF GUPUT MISTRI, R/O VILLAGE GAHNA, P.O. & P.S- HASPURA, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD.. . RESPONDENT. For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.2, Adv. : Mr. Amar Nath Mishra, Adv. ----------- 2/ 11.02.2011 The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against order dated 27.11.2009, passed in Civil Review No. 235 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge found no merit in the review application, and dismissed the same. 2. The review application was preferred against the order dated 30.07.2008 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing Second Appeal No. 238 of 2002. While dismissing the review application, learned Single Judge observed that no ground for review has been made out by the review petitioner, as there was no error apparent on the face of record nor any fresh material has been produced on the basis of which any another view can be taken. The appellant has challenged the order dismissing review applications. Before we take up the plea raised by the appellant, it would be necessary to note the facts of the case in some detail. 3. One Gopal Mistri executed two deeds of gifts separately, one in the name of the appellant, who happened to be his nephew, and the other in the name of his daughter Ram Dulari Devi, who is the sole respondent in this appeal. The gift deeds were executed 2 on 11.01.1974. On 25.06.1979, Ram Dulari Devi, the daughter of the donee Gopal Mistri, filed Title Suit no. 104 of 1979, in the Court of Munsif, Aurangabad, for cancellation and setting aside the deed executed in favour of the appellant. She contended that the deed of gift dated 11.01.1974, with respect to the suit property, was obtained by the appellant by playing fraud upon her father. Gopal Mistri himself has deposed that he heard propaganda in the village about execution of deed of gift in favour of the appellant, he could only know fraud had been committed because as per agreement, Rehan deed was to be executed. The trial court allowed the Title Suit on 03.02.1989. The appellant filed Title Appeal No. 18 of 1989, which was too dismissed by order dated 29.06.2002. Thereafter the appellant preferred Second appeal no. 238 of 2002 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the Second appeal by order dated 30.07.2008. 4. The learned Single Judge observed that both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff has been able to prove that the principal defendant got executed deed of gift dated 11.01.1974, with respect to the suit property by playing fraud upon Gopal Mistri, because as per the agreement, Rehan deed was to be executed. The learned Single Judge also noticed that admittedly Gopal Mistri, the author of the gift deed was illiterate and hence it was incumbent upon principal defendants no.1 to 5 to prove the fact that the deed of gift had been voluntarily executed by Gopal Mistri and contents of the deed were read over and explained to him, whereafter he put his left thumb impression. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the appellant has failed to prove the same. Further more, only the appellant 3 contested the suit. The remaining four donees did not come to controvert the claim of the plaintiff Gopal Mistri. 5. The appellant has assailed the order passed in review petition on the following grounds that (a) there is no provision for extending the period of limitation for filing a suit for setting aside a deed of gift beyond the period of limitation; (b) That when a party execute a deed of gift, the presumption is that he did so within his full knowledge; (©) The Sub-registrar, who registered the deed of gift was a necessary party; Lastly both the learned trial court and appellate court also restrained the appellant from going on to the plot when the suit was only declaratory in nature. 6. As far as points of limitation of filing of suit is concerned the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff came to know about the said gift only in April, 1979 and hence the suit filed in the year 1979 was within three years of the period of limitation provided under the law of limitation. Further more, both the trial court and the appellate court held that the deed of gift was got executed by the appellant by deceiving the father of the respondent, who was an illiterate person. In review jurisdiction, the Court can interfere only on limited grounds, which has been well stated in Constitution Bench decision in case of Shivdeo Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909. The appeal preferred against an order of a learned Single Judge refusing to interfere in review jurisdiction is circumscribed by the parameters permissible for reviewing the order. 7. It is well settled that a review court can interfere, if there is an error apparent on the basis of the record or a fresh material 4 has been produced, which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. A review petition can also be maintainable to appropriate cases, if there is grave miscarriage of justice. The parameters available for interfering in appeal against an order passed in review application is not as broad-based and wider as available in an appeal. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that there is an apparent error on the face of the record in the order of the learned Single Judge, or that despite his due diligence certain facts could not have been produced before the Court. The learned Single Judge rightly observed that no sufficient ground has been made out in the review application for interfering in the order dated 30.07.2008 passed in Second Appeal No. 238 of 2002. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find merit in this appeal and as such this appeal is dismissed. Uday/ (S. K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)