( 1 ) THIS review petition has been filed seeking review of the decree and judgment of this Court, rendered in S. A. 12/92, dated 11-7-1995.

( 2 ) THE Second Appeal 12/92 was filed against the judgment and decree in A. S. 172/88 dated 25-9-1991 on the file of the learned Additional District judge, Tirupati, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O. S. 167/1979 dated 27-10-1988 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupati. After considering all the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the material on record this court by judgment dated 11-7-1995 dismissed the second appeal with costs. Against the said judgment and decree the petitioner filed this review petition.

( 3 ) MR. M. Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the review petitioner- appellant urged the following grounds viz. ,: (1) that the learned Counsel who appeared before this Court at the time of the hearing of the second appeal has not correctly placed material before this Court and did not advance certain crucial contentions; (2) that there were errors apparent on the face of the record; (3) that although the finding of the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff had resigned was not based on record as no resignation letter was produced before the Courts below, the said finding was accepted by this Court erroneously;and (4) that this Court has not considered the relevant material in dismissing the second appeal. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the review petitioner relied on the following decisions viz. , Sarala Sundari vs. Dinabandhu Roy chenchanna vs. P. S. Transports Ltd. ; Roman Catholic Mission vs. State of Madras; burma Shell O. S. Dist. Co. vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal; Benoy Krishna vs. Surajbali; and M. M. B. Catholicos vs. M. P. Athana Sins.

( 4 ) REPELLING the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri n. V. Suryanarayana Murthy, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submits that this is not a fit case for review. In the guise of filing the review petition, the petitioner is trying to reopen the entire matter which is not permissible in law. He also submits that the ingredients of Order 47, Rule 1 are not present in the present case. Therefore, the review petition has to be dismissed in limini. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decisions in Northern India Caterers vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi and Srinivasa Rao vs. Sajana granites.

( 5 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions the question that arises for consideration is whether this review petition is maintainable.

( 6 ) AS far as the first contention is concerned, it is to be noted that the learned counsel who appeared in the second appeal before this Court on earlier occasion has taken all possible contentions and the same were considered by this Court. Therefore, it would not be fair to contend by the present Counsel that the Counsel who appeared on the earlier occasion did not advance certain crucial contentions and failed to place correct material before this Court.

( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner advanced his second contention basing on Order XLVII, Rule 1 which reads as follows:"o. XLVII; Review: rule 1. Application for review of judgment- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved (a) by a decree or order from which an apeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which p