The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a review of a judgment, the mistake must be apparent on the face of the record and must result in a miscarriage of justice.

1. This is an application for review filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

2. The review of judgment dated 28/4/2008 delivered by this Court in Second Appeal No. 116 of 1992 has been sought by the applicants on the ground that there has been an error apparent on the face of the record in recording a finding as regards ownership of the non-applicants and that this finding has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

3. The non-applicants filed a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.144 of 1976 against the applicants claiming that they became the owners of field No.6/1 having area of about 29 acres situated at Mouza Dadapur,Tah. Warora, Distt. Chandrapur, hereinafter called as 'suit property', for the sake of convenience, by virtue of registered will executed in their favour in the year 1973 by one Bharatsingh. It was their case that original non-applicant No.1 Meerabai was the legally wedded wife of Bharatsingh and non-applicant No.2 was his son and that Bharatsingh was the owner of the suit property. They submitted that way back in the year 1952, Bharatsingh gave possession of the suit property to Meerabai for her maintenance. But later on, in the year 1964, Bharatsingh claimed back possession from Meerabai and he also filed a civil suit against her for possession. The suit was dismissed by the concerned Court, which was the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Warora and in the appeal filed against the decree of dismissal of the suit before the District Court, Chandrapur, the suit was allowed and decree was granted in favour of Bharatsingh. The second appeal was preferred by the non-applicants before the High Court in the year 1966. During the pendency of this appeal, Bharatsingh executed an agreement of maintenance in the year 1968 in favour of Meerabai and later on, in the year 1977 also executed a registered will in favour of Meerabai as well as non-applicant No.2 bequeathing the suit property to them. Bharatsingh died on 01/5/1974 and, thereafter, as per the said will, the applicants claimed that they became absolute owners of the suit property. Meanwhile, Second Appeal No.187 of 1966, pending in the High Court, came to be abated on 13/02/1975 and as no legal representatives were brought on record, it was disposed of on 13/02/1975. The non-applicants submitted that the applicants falsely claiming themselves to be the cousins of Bharatsingh and thus the legal heirs of Bharatsingh, filed execution proceedings to execute the decree of possession passed by the Court of District Judge, Chandrapur. The non-applicants submitted in these execution proceedings that they were not noticed by the applicants and thus, without their knowledge, got the decree of possession executed against them. The non-applicants further submitted that they came to know about the said fraud of the applicants only on 23/11/1975 when Meerabai was summoned by Tahsildar for mutating the names of the applicants in revenue record as owners in respect of the suit property. Therefore, the non-applicants filed the said suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 144 of 1976 for declaration that they were the owners of the suit property and for recovery of possession of the suit property against the applicants.

4. The applicants resisted the suit. They denied relationship of the non-applicants with Bharatsingh. They denied execution of the alleged will in favour of the non-applicants. They denied that the non-applicants were not aware of the execution proceedings and the decree was got executed by them by playing fraud upon the non-applicants. They submitted that the non-applicants were not the legal representatives of Bharatsingh. They also submitted that the suit as filed was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

5. On these pleadings, several issues were framed by the trial Court and after considering the evidence adduced by the rival parties, the suit