IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.38 of 2008. Date of decision: 07.03.2008. Sh.Arvind Kohli and another …..Petitioners -Versus- Shri Sumeet Walia and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr.S.D.Gill, Advocate. For respondent-1: M/s.Ankush Sood & Suneet Goel, Advocates. Deepak Gupta, J(oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 2nd August, 2006 passed by this Court in RFA No.149 of 2006. In fact the petition should not have been registered as CMPMO but is in essence Review Petition and should have been registered as such. Be that as it may, the fact is that there is no merit in the petition. The respondent No.1 filed a suit claiming possession of land comprised in khasra No.275 measuring 19 biswa, khasra No.278 measuring 4 bighas 6 biswas, khasra No.280 measuring 1 biswa, khasra No.285 measuring 8 biswas, khasra No.276 measuring 2 biswas (total 5 bighas 16 biswas), khasra No.169 measuring 15 biswas, khasra No.524/286 measuring 2 bighas 16 biswas situated at Mouja Shoghi, Tehsil and District Shimla and land comprised in khasra No.3 measuring 1 bigha 12 biswas situate at Mouja Krairoo, Tehsil and District Shimla. This suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. This judgment was challenged by Capt.S.P. Kohli and 2 Capt.K.N.Kohli. The present petitioners are their sons and were respondents 6 & 7 in RFA No.149 of 2006 earlier decided by me. After hearing the parties, vide a detailed judgment the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court was upheld. Thereafter, the present petitioners also filed one civil suit in which they have alleged that 7 biswas and 3 biswas of land in khasra Nos.278 and 273 are not covered by the Will in question. The petitioners also filed a Review Petition before the trial Court praying for the review of the judgment and decree. The learned trial Court rightly held that such a Review Petition was not maintainable since the judgment of the Trial Court had already been upheld by this Court and had merged in the judgment of this Court. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed. As far as Article 227 is concerned, that has no applicability since even according to the petitioners there is a mistake committed by this Court. If that be so then the petition could only have been under Order 47 and not under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby this Court exercises supervisory powers over the courts of inferior jurisdiction. These supervisory powers cannot be invoked to correct the orders of the same Court. As far as merits of the case are concerned the judgment and decree was passed by this Court on August 2, 2006. The Review Petition was filed before the learned District Judge on 24.12.2007. Even assuming for the sake of arguments, though there is no such plea in the petition, that the petitioners were misled in filing this petition before the trial Court then also at best the time spent before the trial Court could have been excluded while computing the limitation. However, there is no explanation worth the name in the petition as to why the petitioners were silent from August 2, 2006 till December, 2007. This Court has specifically upheld the judgment of the trial Court vide which it had passed a decree in respect of khasra No.278 in favour of 3 respondent No.1 without any reservation. The present petitioners had never challenged the decree before this Court. Only their father and Uncle had challenged the decree. Once they had accepted the decree they had no right to even asked for a review of the orders passed since they had not challenged the decree passed by the trial Court itself. There is no error apparent on the record of the case. The petitioners have failed to point out any such error in the judgment of this Court. It is apparent that the petitioners are only trying to delay the execution of the decree on one ground or the other. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. CMP No.116 of 2008: In view of the dismissal of the main petition, this application is also dismissed. March 7, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge