IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.68 of 2011 In (FA 101/2007) Smt. Nirmala Devi & Ors Versus Jagrano Kunwar & Ors ---------------------------------- O R D E R 06. 16.11.2011. 1. I have already heard the learned counsel, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, on behalf of the opposite party. 2. This review application has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents-petitioners for reviewing the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2011 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.101 of 2007. 3. The learned counsel, Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order of the Collector contained in ext.C/1 is under challenge in C.W.J.C. No.13116 of 1992 which was earlier dismissed for default but subsequently, the restoration application has been allowed and the said writ application is pending before the High Court. The learned counsel next submitted that Mostt. Jagrano has sold more than her half share but this matter was not considered in the Judgment. There was no pleading regarding lunacy of Nathuni, therefore, Nathuni inherited the property of his father but the said fact has - 2 - not been considered in the Judgment. The area of the land and plots numbers have been mentioned in the sale deeds sold to the defendants which could have been calculated and could have been found out that whether the sale made by Mostt. Jagrano was within her half share or not but the same has not been considered. According to the learned counsels these are the errors committed in the Judgment and decree which are apparent on the face of the record. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner come within the purview of order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. While exercising power under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., this Court cannot give a second thought on the matter. According to the learned counsel, all the points raised by the petitioner was raised at the time of hearing of the First Appeal and, therefore, no review is maintainable on same facts. 5. From perusal of the Judgment sought to be reviewed, it appears that all these submissions were made at the time of hearing of the First Appeal. The Court has taken the notice of these facts and has considered in the Judgment. 6. In 2006 (4) Supreme Court cases 78 Haridas Vs. Usha Rani Banik, the Apex Court has held that parameters for review are prescribed in Order - 3 - 47 C.P.C. None of the provisions mentioned in Order 47 C.P.C. postulate a rehearing of a dispute. 7. The provisions relating to exercise of power of review constitute an exception to the general rule that when once a Judgment / Order is signed and pronounced, it cannot afterwards be altered, added to, hence a right of review is exercisable only where the circumstances are distinctly covered by the statutory exceptions. The provision as contained in Order 47 Rule 1 is in its definitive of the limits within which a review is permitted by the Court. When the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 are wanting review would not lie. In the present case as stated above, all the questions/points raised by the petitioner in this review were raised earlier in the First Appeal and the same were taken note of by this Court. Therefore, now on the ground that the said points have been decided wrongly or the points were approached wrongly while deciding is not a ground for review of the Judgment. Likewise, only because the writ application has been restored, the Judgment cannot be reviewed and moreover, it has got no vital importance relating to the rights of the parties. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the certified copy of the sale deed of the year 1965 has wrongly been marked as Exhibit in the - 4 - appeal. From perusal of the Judgment, it appears that this aspect of the matter was considered at length and it was found that the same was filed in the Court below and the Court below found that the said certified copy of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff herself is a relevant document for just decision of the case but rejected on other grounds. In my opinion, therefore, because a wrong decision has been given or that issue has wrongly been decided or that interlocutory application filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has wrongly been allowed is not a ground for review. 9. It appears that by filing this review application, the petitioner wanted to get rehearing of the First Appeal on the same set of evidence and same pleading and same questions which cannot be permitted as review proceedings are not appeals and, therefore, the same should be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. 10. In the above position of law, in my opinion, the present review application has got no merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna The 16thday of November, 2011 Sanjeev/A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)