The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.

Shivaji Pandey, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the present review application in connection with order dated 10.2.2009 passed in M.A. No. 168 of 2008 by which this Court has refused to interfere with the order of the court below with respect to refusing to grant injunction in connection with Partition Suit No. 470 of 2006.

3. This case has a chequered history as partition suit is pending as well as with respect to the same property two probate cases are pending before this Court for adjudication.

4. Certain facts are relevant for the purposes of disposal of the present civil review application.

5. Sitabar Sharan has acquired substantial land in the Town of Patna vide Plot No. 1291 measuring 41 decimals of land, plot No. 1291/1856 measuring 10 decimals of land and plot No. 1289 measuring 30 decimals of land. In plot No. 1291 some shops were standing, in plot No. 1291/1856 old house was standing which was under the occupation of the plaintiff petitioner has a pathological lab over it. Sitabar Sharan has four sons and four daughters and present petitioner is youngest child of her parents as has been claimed by the petitioner that plot No. 1291/1856 has been given to her through oral gift by her father. When the dispute amongst brother and sister could not be materialised amicably, filed partition suit. After filing of the partition suit three probate cases have been filed, one by her mother and two probate cases have been filed by two brothers. During the life time of her mother she claimed 1/9th share as they have four brothers and four sisters. The probate case that was filed by the mother was registered as Test Suit No. 1 of 2010 but after the death of mother probate case filed could not survive and died out of natural death. Two probate cases filed by brothers are pending are Test Case No. 3 of 2009 and 3 of 2010.

6. The present petitioner in the partition suit has filed an application for ad interim injunction against her family members including the developer with a prayer that they be restrained from changing the nature of the suit premises. In the injunction application allegation has been made that her other family members have entered into agreement on 19.12.20004 with defendant No. 9 for construction of multi-storeyed building over the three plots belonging to Sitabar Sharan.

7. This Court while considering the appeal against the order of the court below refusing to grant the relief of injunction has recorded that defendant No. 9 has already constructed major part of the building became main factor for this court to refuse to interfere with the order of the court below refusing to grant injunction. The court has found that the plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable loss if defendant No. 9 is permitted to make or complete the construction works on the suit lands as well as the plaintiff also failed to show her possession over the suit land and as such recorded that plaintiff-petitioner has failed to make out a case of balance of convenience would tilt in her favour but at the end the Court has directed that builder will preserve 1/9th share in the constructed portion of the suit lands will be subject to the result of the partition suit but this Court finally has directed that share of the petitioner in the constructed portion of the suit land would be preserved subject to the result of the partition suit.

8. After disposal of that case petitioner/applicant filed M.J.C. No. 1190 of 2010, the same was disposed of vide order dated 18.1.2012 where this Court has recorded that "in the facts of this case there appears to be a dispute on each and every issue between the parties. The suit has to be adjudicated by the civil court and the order of the court is by way of interim arrangement which obviously would not prejudice to the rights of the parties in the suits of the parties. As a result this Court disposes of the contempt application as substantial compliance of this Court has been done."

9. This fin