IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Review No.59 of 2007 Reserved on 28.3.2008 Date of decision 5.4.2008 M/s Punjab Coal Company Petitioner Versus Union of India Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. J.L. Kashyap, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma,J. By way of present petition the petitioner is seeking review of the judgment dated 23.7.2007 passed in CWP No.336 of 2003. The petitioner was issued a licence for stacking coal etc. being carried from Kalka to Shimla by rail. The licence issued in favour of the petitioner was revoked in the year 1986. The respondent i.e. Union of India through Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway approached the estate Officer, Northern Railway Ambala Cantonment for eviction of the petitioner and for the payment of damages. The proceedings were closed by the Estate Officer on 18.3.1992. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shimla. The same was dismissed. The respondent approached this court by way of CMPM (O) assailing order of the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla. The CMPM (O) No.17 of 2000 was decided by this Court on 27/28.11.2001. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal within six months. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge preferred by the respondent under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Un- 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2 authorized Occupants) Act, 1971 on 6.9.2002. The respondent approached this court by way of CWP No.336 of 2003, challenging order dated 6.9.2002. This court allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent and order dated 18.3.1992 passed by the Estate Officer and judgment dated 6.9.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shimla were quashed and set aside. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had strenuously argued that there is error apparent on the face of the record since the Court has not considered the necessary revenue entries and the ownership of the State has been reflected instead of Railway administration. Mr.J.L.Kshyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that there is no error on the face of the record and the petition has to be decided within the para meters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The proceedings commenced against the petitioner in the year 1986. The licence issued in favour of the petitioner Company was revoked. The petitioner-Company had appeared before the Estate Officer, Northern Railway, Ambala. The order was passed by the Estate Officer on 18.3.1992. The petitioner Company has not placed any revenue record on record before the Estate Officer. The revenue record was available and the same could easily be produced before the Estate Officer. The petitioner Company has also failed to place the revenue record before the appellate court as well as before this court at the time of pendency of CMPM (O) No.17 of 2000. It has come in the pleadings that the petitioner had ascertained the ownership of the property for the first time after judgment rendered by this court on 23.7.2007. This court had decided the writ petition on the basis of the material placed before it by the parties. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a new point on the basis of 3 revenue entries placed on record for the first time with this review petition. The review petition is required to be decided by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution as per the principles enshrined in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. The review can be granted only in case of glaring omission, patent mistake or like grave error and not for rehearing of a case. The review is to be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. The errors ought to be such as would be apparent on mere looking of the record without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning. It is evident from the revenue record placed on record that the name of the petitioner has not been reflected therein. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. CMP No.703 of 2007 In view of the dismissal of the main petition, the interim order dated 11.10.2007 and subsequently extended on 15.11.2007 shall stand vacated. April 5 ,2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J