Jitendra Kumar, J. – The present Review Petition has been filed to review the Order dated 02.12.2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23813 of 2019, whereby the Writ Petition of the Petitioner was dismissed in limine on account of non-maintainability.

2. Hence the question is whether this Court can review the said Order under Civil Review Jurisdiction.

3. Before we proceed to consider the submission of the Petitioner for review, it is imperative to examine the Statutory Provisions and Case Laws to know what is scope and limitation of the Review Jurisdiction.

4. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with substantive power to Review a decree or order. This Section reads as follows: –

“114. Review. – Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved,

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

5. This Section, however, does not refer to any conditions or limitation in regard to exercise of Review Jurisdiction. However, Order 47 of Civil Procedure Code deals with procedure as well as conditions and limitations of Review Jurisdiction. Order 47 reads as follows: –

“1. 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 which 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 whom 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 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.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

[Explanation. – The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]”

6. Coming to Case Laws, we find that in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribbam Pishak Sharma & Ors. as reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 3 of the Judgment has observed that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. 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 produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appea