IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.270 of 2010 In (SA 220/2010) Naresh Singh @ Ram Naresh Singh & Ors. Versus Balram Singh & Ors. ---------------------------------- O R D E R 09. 08.12.2011. 1. I have heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Shivnandan Rai on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey on behalf of the respondent. 2. This review application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 C.P.C. for review of the order dated 24.08.2010 passed by this Court in second appeal No.220 of 2010 dismissing the second appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. holding that no substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties who were plaintiff- respondent claimed their title on the basis of registered sale deeds dated 27.04.1973 said to have been executed by one of the son of Ilaichi Devi, namely, Sukhnandan whereas Ilaichi Devi had not acquired any title as it is the case of the plaintiff that Raja had settled the land to her but no registered document was - 2 - produced. This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the second appeal. 4. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that this question was never raised earlier either in the suit or in the First Appeal and moreover it was not even argued in the second appeal earlier. The ground that this fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of second appeal is concerned is not a ground for review. 5. It is well settled principle of law that once a Judgment / Order is signed and pronounced, it cannot be altered unless the right of review is exercised under the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section114 C.P.C. This rule limits within which the review is permitted by the Code which is an exception to the general rule. The question that the point was not raised earlier or that the point could not be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is not a ground for review. Further, the allegation that a Judgment proceeded on an incorrect proposition of law is also no ground for review. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in 2009 A.I.R. S.C.W. 979 and submitted that unregistered document is inadmissible for proving title. So far this question is - 3 - concerned also, the Court has no jurisdiction to review the order already passed on the ground that this Judgment was not produced earlier before the Court. 7. From perusal of the order sought to be reviewed, it appears that the point decided by the Court below as well as appellate Court and also the point raised by the appellant-petitioner in second appeal has been considered, reasoned order has been passed. 8. In my opinion, therefore, the said order cannot be reviewed on the ground that the Supreme Court Judgment was not cited or that point could not be raised in the suit in the appeal or at the time of hearing of second appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. Thus, this review application is dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna The 8thday of December, 2011 Sanjeev/N.A.F.R. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)