( 1 ) THIS review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra babu, j. And Hon'ble Mr. B. s. sreenivasa rao, j. , in w. a. nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri shivaram bhat, learned counsel for the applicants/ petitioners.

( 3 ) THIS court dismissed the appeals and passed the order "that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'dismissed'. " it is against this Order, the review application has been filed.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the Provisions of order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in puran singh and others v state of punjab and others. We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under order 47, rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (see: aribam tuleshwar sharma v aribam pishak sharma and others ). The same principles have been followed by this court in c. n. byrappa (deceased) by l. rs v state of Karnataka and others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in mis. thungabhadra industries limited v government of Andhra Pradesh , where their lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that "a review is by no means an appeal in disguise where by an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be "made out". These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in smt. Meera bhanja v Smt. nirmala kumari and parson devi v sumitra devi, (paras 7 to 9)

( 5 ) APPLYING this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners viz. , puran singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the parliament provided that for the purpose of that section 141 of the CPC the expression "proceedings" includes "proceedings under order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under article 226 of the constitution". That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that code of civil procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under article 225 by the high court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application

Click Here to Read the rest of this document