IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.341 of 2010 Paspati Devi & Ors Versus Suresh Chandra Sharma & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 23.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel Mr. Vinod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This review application has been filed by the appellants under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review of the order dated 3.1.2010 passed by me on the injunction application i.e. I.A. No. 6846 of 2010 filed on behalf of the appellants praying for injunction against the respondent No.2 restraining him or his agents and servants from interfering with the possession of the appellants during the pendency of the first appeal After hearing both the parties the said injunction application was disposed of by terms of order dated 3.1.2010 and the injunction application was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents made wrong statement that there is already status quo order passed by the court below in the final decree proceeding and, therefore, on that basis the order has been passed by this Court on 3.11.2010 and the injunction application has been rejected. The provision relating to exercise of power of 2 review constitute and exceptions to the general rule that when once a judgment or order is signed and pronounced it cannot afterwards be altered added to and hence a right is exercisable only whether the statutory exceptions are distinctly covered by the provisions as contained under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. So far submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order has been passed on the basis of the wrong submission made by the respondent is concerned from perusal of the order dated 3.10.2011 it does not appear so. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and the submission which is being made now also the order has been passed refusing to grant injunction. It is not a fact that only on the ground that the status quo order has been passed therefore, injunction prayer has been refused and moreover on the same ground the court cannot change the view. I therefore, find no merit in this review application. Accordingly, this review application is rejected. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)