IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1504 of 2006 UMESH PRASAD SINGH & ANR Versus SRI THAKUR RAMJANKI MAHARAJ NISTA ASTHAL ----------- 2 04.12.2008 In the opinion of this Court, the grievance of the petitioners against the impugned order passed by the Court below refusing to review an earlier order dated 31.3.2004, does not require any interference by this Court inasmuch as the Court below has noted in the impugned order that there was no such apparent error on the face of the record which could have enable it to review its order dated 31.3.2004. The view of the Court below in the order dated 31.3.2004 that the petitioner was not a necessary or proper party in terms of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure may be right or may be wrong but the petitioner in order to avail the jurisdiction of review was required to show as to what was the error apparent on the face of the record in the aforesaid order dated 31.3.2004. That having been not done and the Court below having given cogent reasons for rejecting such prayer of the petitioner, this Court would hardly find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. That being so this Civil Revision application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)