IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.118 of 2011 RAJARAM PD. & ORS Versus BIJAY PD. & ORS ----------- 02. 22.04.2011 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Chitragupt Prasad on behalf of the petitioners in this Review application. (2) This review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 09.03.2011 passed by me in First Appeal No.269 of 2007. The said First Appeal No.269 of 2007 was filed by the defendants- appellants-petitioners against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge III, Aurangabad in pre- emption suit no.226 of 2004/115 of 2004. Trial court after considering the evidences available on record found that there had been no partition by metes and bounds between the parties and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for pre-emption and decreed the suit. That judgment of the trial court has been confirmed by the judgment sought to be reviewed. (3) The learned counsel, Mr. Chitragupt Prasad submitted that while deciding the First Appeal in the judgment, this Court misconstrued Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-A, B, C, D and E and wrongly came to the conclusion that there had been no partition between the parties. The learned counsel submitted that there had already been partition and the application for separate mutation was filed by the father of the plaintiff before the Municipality and, therefore, the plaintiff was estopped to say that there had been no partition because the father has already admitted the partition. (4) From perusal of the judgment, it appears that all these aspects have already been dealt with. Moreover, it is well settled principles of law that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. The Court has no inherent power to review the judgment rather the power is creature of statute. In the same set of facts and on the same evidence and same grounds review is not maintainable. Likewise wrong appreciation of evidence is also not a ground for review. Here another counsel appeared and argued the case in different manner on the same evidence which is not permissible for review of the judgment as the object is not to enable a Judge to write a second judgment because the first one is wrong. In my opinion, therefore, I find no merit in this Review application and accordingly, this Review application is dismissed. Saurabh/A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)