IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Review No. 64 of 2007 Order reserved on: 9.7.2008. Date of Decision: 21.7.2008. Dhakpa Nangial & ors. …..Petitioners. Versus Palsar Singh & ors. ……Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C.Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : None. V.K.Ahuja. J. This order shall dispose of the Review Petition filed by the petitioners under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 & 151 of CPC for review of the judgment passed by this Court in R.S.A No. 233 of 1995 dated 15.6.2007. A notice of this petition was issued to respondents, who did not put up appearance. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the record of the case which was also called for. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners were that the appeal had been admitted by this Court on substantial questions 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of law No. 1 to 3, which were formulated at the time of admission and, therefore, all these three questions were required to be decided on merits. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners had referred to various findings recorded by both the Courts’ below under different issues and it was sought to be urged before this Court that these findings require re-appraisal of evidence by this Court and as such, the application for review deserves to be allowed accordingly. I have gone through the judgment passed by this Court on 15.6.2007. A perusal of this judgment shows that it was observed by this Court that the appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3 as have been formulated at page No. 6 of the paper-book. The observations were also made at page No. 4 of the judgment which may be reproduced as under: “A perusal of these questions of law framed shows that the appeal was admitted on the ground that whether the principle of estoppel was attracted against the appellants and proforma respondents as well as that respondent No.1 held the land till her life time. Both these questions are based upon evidence led by the parties and these pertain to findings of fat recorded by both the Courts below and, therefore, there can be no reappraisal of the evidence while sitting in appeal and as such, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law is made out, not even question of law, which calls for reappraisal of evidence.” It is, therefore, clear that though the appeal was admitted on some substantial questions of law and a reference was also made to those substantial questions of law but during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants had failed to refer to any earlier documentary 3 evidence which was not considered by learned first appellate Court or the trial Court or there has been mis-reading of any oral or documentary evidence by both the Courts’ below. The mere fact that the appeal has been admitted on some substantial questions of law does not lead to an inference that there has to be re-appraisal of evidence by this Court sitting in second appeal once it was not substantiated during the course of arguments that any oral or documentary evidence was omitted from consideration by both the Courts’ below or was wrongly considered by the Courts’ below. The mere admission of the appeal on some substantial questions of law does not lead to the inference that there has to be re-appraisal of evidence when this plea was not substantiated during the course of arguments. The application for review of the judgment lies in case some conditions are satisfied. Order XLVII Rule 1 reads as under: “1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.” 4 It is, therefore, clear from a bare perusal of this provision that a review can be made in case the applicant has discovered some new or important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed. The second ground on which the application for review of judgment lies is that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, the applicant desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him. To my mind, both these conditions are not satisfied and the findings given by this Court while deciding the second appeal cannot be re-considered and as such, there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioners, which is dismissed accordingly. File be consigned. July 21 , 2008 (V.K.Ahuja), Judge. (karan)