Hl! SPU: Petitioner yiE-W PETITION No 32 of2007. Deshraj Chaudharu- S./o Late Baburam Chaudhark- aged about 72 years, Resident of Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.), at present Residmg at Village Abhepur, District Una (Hmiaiichal Pradesh) VERSUS : Deepak Kumar Saraf S/o Moti Lal Saraf aged about 46 yeara resident ofLiiik Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICATION U/S 114 R/\V. ORDER 47 RL^LE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR RE\rIEW OF THE OKDER DATED 21.03.2007 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) No. 6860/2006 Itespoiiden Shri K.A.Ansari, Sr. Advocate wifh Smt. Meera Arisari, Advocate for tiis applicant. (Passsd on 20th day of June, 2007) Tb.e petitioner has filed this petitioa seekiiie review ofthe order dated 21.03.2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6860/2006. The petitioner has pointed out typographical imsta'ke iil para 5 that the father ofthe petitioner did not prefer Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2005 but the said appeal was preferred by the respondent and Us father. Oa ke perjsal ofthe papers, it is found that the factual typograpliical mistake poiated out by the leamed counsel for the petitioner is conect. Accordmsly, para 5 ofthe order dated 21.03.2007 ia W.P (C) No. 6860/2006 is con-ected. The present review application seeks re- hearing ofthe case ui tfae guise ofreview appiication which camiot be considered in review applicatioa. ne 2. Contents ofpara 5 is corrscted partially. In place of "The father oftl petitioner preferred a Civil Appea! No. 3-A/2005 asainst the judsment [ 1. '^: •—1^'^- -../ and decree dated 15.7.2005 before the District Judge Bilaspur...." the said para be read as under: "The respondent and his father prefen-ed a Civil Appeal No. 3-A/2005 against the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2005 before fhe District Judge, Bilaspur." 3. \Vith regard to ofher contention that this Court has not considered para 6.6 of the virit petition is not con-ect. This Court, after having considered para 6.6, oassed the order as the petition was flled under Article 227 of the Constitution, wha-ein the scope of iaterference by this Coiirt is limited to the extent jurisdiction ofjudicial rA-iew ofthe order passed by the Court below, ia the event, fhere is manifest and apparent error on the face of fhe proceediags based on tfae clear ignorance or utter disregard to the provisions of law or there is a-sve failure ofjustiee or erave iajustice has occasioned fhereby. Further, this Court can also entertain fhe petition if there is perversity, irresularitv or illegalitv in the orocess ofdecision, aot in the decision •itsel£ 4. The petitioner has not pointed out anv manifest error oa the record and the petitioner has not farther brought into fhe notice, any new fact which could not be produced earlier despite diUgent eftbrts made by the petitioner. It is well settled that the review proceedinss are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly corifined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise ofreview iurisdiction bv the Hish. Court uader Artide 226 of \ the Constitutioa of India. The applicaat has not produced any new .around for review except the same .eround which have been considered and dscided iu flie writ petition. J. Principle oflaw is well settled bv several iudicia' pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court m the c^es of Smt. Meera Bhanjaa Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudharv', Lilv Thomas, etc. Vs. Union of India and others , Ajit Kumar Ratfa Vs. State of Orissa and Others , Goverament ofT.N. and others Vs. M.Atiaachu Asari and others . and Keria State Electricitv Board Vs. Hiech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others . As a result and ia view of the foregoing, this review petitioa is allowed to fhe above extent i.e. the tvooeraphical mistake in para 5 of the order dated 21.03.2007 is corrected / modified accordingly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aiiiit 1. AIR ly9S SC4j3 2. AIR 2000 SC 1630 3. AI2.2000SC85 4. (2QQS} 2 SCC 332 5. (2005) S SCC 651