Point of Law: question of sustaining part of the document to the extent of a part of it, by invoking Section 32 of the Specific Relief Act does not arise. The reason is that impersonation is nothing but a category of fraud and it is too well settled that fraud would vitiate everything. Secondly, Lakshmanna was not a party to that suit.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.1 of 2012 (Review SAMP No.221 of 2012) has been filed by the applicant/appellant to review the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.

2. Having heard the both counsels and looking to the reasons stated in this application, there are reasonable reasons in preferring the Review Petition.

3. The respondents no.1 and 2 herein i.e., the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.171 of 1999 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, for partition of the plaint schedule property into 2 equal shares by meets and bounds according to the good and bad qualities and to deliver the possession of one such share to the plaintiffs to an extent of Ac 1.59 cents and for costs. The said suit was dismissed on 18.06.2007 by the trial Court. Against the same, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred the first appeal A.S.No.198 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/defendant preferred the present Second Appeal No.639 of 2010 before the Common High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 07.07.2011. Aggrieved by which, the applicant/appellant has preferred the present review petition I.A.No.1 of 2012.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that this Court while dismissing the Second Appeal, answered the first question against the appellant instead of ‘respondents/plaintiffs’ at the end of paragraph 22 of the judgment. In the second question answered against the appellant instead of ‘respondent/plaintiff’ at the end of paragraph 23 of the judgment. He also contended that finally at paragraph 24 of the judgment, at the last line also it was answered as ‘the presence of the said lady as a party as legal representative was in no way helpful to the appellant instead of ‘no way helpful to the respondents/plaintiffs’.

5. While going through examine the issue of scope in Review, limited grounds on which, the judgment can be reviewed, have been set out in Order XLVII Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). Order XLVII Rule 7 of CPC reads as under :

Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Application for review of judgment"

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from 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 or 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 passed the decree or made the order.

6. It is also trite that the expression "any other sufficient reasons", as employed in Order XLVII Rule 1 has to be interpreted ejusdem generis to the expressions that precede it.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 has noted that power of review is not to be exercised on grounds that the decision is erroneous on merits. The relevant para of the judgement is reproduced herein below:-

Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar PouloseAnthanasius,: (1955) 1 SCR 520; Lily Thomas v. U.O.I.: (2000) 6 SCC 224; Ajit Kumar v. State of Orissa (1999) 9 SCC 596;

“The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produ