A gross error of law apparent on the face of the record is a sufficient ground for review of a judgment.

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This is an application by the defendants. The plaintiffs opposite parties I to 4 filed Title Suit No. 127 of 1958 in the Second Court of the Munsif at Samastipur for a declaration that the lands in suit were their personal properties and the order dated the 13th of June, 1958 passed by the authority under Sec. 43 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act declaring the same to be public trust property was illegal, and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from taking possession of the same. The case of the plaintiffs was that their father, Punia Misra, had acquired the property in the benami name of their family deity. The defence of the petitioners was that the suit lands were not acquired by the plaintiffs family, but they were acquired out of public subscriptions and that the deity named in the sale deed is not the family deity of the plaintiffs. The trial Court accepted the pleas taken in defence and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

In an appeal in the lower appellate Court filed by them, the plaintiffs gave up their case of the suit lands being their personal property and private acquisition, but pressed the appeal on the ground that the property belonged to the family deity and that the deity mentioned in the sale deed was their family deity. The lower appellate Court accepted this contention of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. A second appeal, being Second Appeal No. 927 of 1960, was filed in this Court on behalf of the petitioners, but the same was dismissed in limine under Order 41, Rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). They have now filed the present application for review of the order dismissing the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, of the Code on the ground that certain points of law which were apparent on the face of the record were not pressed by the junior Counsel, Mr. Sadhu Saran Sahai, who argued the appeal for admission in absence of the senior Counsel, Mr. K. K. Sinha.

2. An objection has been taken on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents that the omission of argument on a question of law, even though there may have been an error apparent on the face of the record, is not a ground for review of an order. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs opposite parties on the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, Order 41, Rule 31, Order 20, Rule 4(2), and Sec.2(9) of the Code. Order 47, Rule 1, so far as is relevant for the purpose of the present case, provides that any person considering himself aggrieved--

"(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed...... 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."

It has been contended that what has to be reviewed is the judgment, and not the decree or order itself. It is submitted that the order dismissing the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, of the Code is not a judgment within the meaning of the Code and, therefore, the review application is not maintainable. "Judgment has been defined in Sec.2(9) of the Code as meaning "the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order." According to Order 20, Rule 4(2), of the Code a judgment has to contain, a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. Order 41, Rule 31, of the Code lays down that "The judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state) (a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d) where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is enti