IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.279 of 2008 JAI PRAKASH SAO @ JAI PRAKASH PRASAD Versus MEENA DEVI ----------- 3. 6.5.2009 Heard Mr. R.K.Rajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking review of the order of this Court dated 29.8.2008 passed in Civil Revision No.1899 of 2007 who points out that in view of the following sentence incorporated in the order of this Court dated 29.8.2008, the petitioner is finding difficulty in pursuing his remedy before the court below. The relevant sentence reads as follows: “………………In the opinion of this Court, the Court below had nothing to do after its order dated 20.06.2002 had already been affirmed by this Court vide an order dated 29.1.2007 noting therein that the wife had not accepted the compromise…………..” Mr. Rajan, however, when asked to point out the factual error in the aforementioned sentence is not in a position to say that either the court below had not passed an order on 20.6.2002 or the order had not been affirmed by this Court in its order dated 29.1.2007 in an earlier Cr.Misc.No.27102 of 2002. If both the facts are admitted, this Court would hardly find a ground for review which is well circumscribed by the limitations imposed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The reliance placed by Mr. Rajan, learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of National Institute of Technology and others vs. Niraj Kumar Singh reported in 2007(2) PLJR 49 (S.C.) is also wholly 2 misplaced inasmuch as what was dealt therein related to appointment of the respondent found to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court would fail to understand as to how a judicial orders passed by the court as in this case could be brought within the purview of the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court. As a matter of fact what was said in paragraph 22 of the judgment in Niraj Kumar Singh (Supra) heavily relied by the Counsel for the petitioner, was that if such order of appointment was wholly without jurisdiction and was obtained by practicing fraud the same was nullity in the eye of law and as such would not be governed by the principle of res judicata. The question in this case is not of res judicata, rather it relates to recording of a fact that an earlier order passed by the court below on 20.6.2002 has been found to be corrected by this court in the order dated 29.1.2007 on an earlier petition filed by the petitioner. Such order passed by the court below and affirmed by the High Court cannot be brought within the parameters of one being without jurisdiction so as to attract the ratio of Neeraj Kumar Singh (supra). Had the petitioner any grievance against the aforesaid order dated 29.1.2007 of this Court, he had to seek remedy against that order. That being so, this review application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Narendra/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )