Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—This review application has been directed against the judgment dated 26.06.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous No.57 of 2022 which was allowed and held that the Execution Case No.15 of 1967 (arising out of Preliminary decree dated 25.04.1996 in Partition Suit No.36 of 1962/78 of 1996) is automatically revived. It has been observed that proceedings including suit, appeal and revision abated after notification under Section 3 of the Consolidation Act and it remains operative till denotification under Section 26A (on close of the consolidation operation) or under Section 4A (cancellation of notification under Section 3 of the Act).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law as no question arises of revival of the said execution case in view of the judgment of the Full Bench in Seikh Haidar Zan vs. Md. Yusuf Ansari & anr. reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 338 wherein in para 11, it has been laid down that denotification under Section 4A of the Bihar Consolidation Act does not mean that consolidation proceeding has been closed and denotification had been taken place under Section 26A of the Bihar Consolidation Act. He further submits that cancellation of earlier notification issued under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation Act, abated suit or appeal or revision will not revive. Accordingly, the impugned judgment/order is liable to be reviewed on this ground.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for contesting opposite party nos.1 and 2 submits that the present review application is misconceived and there is no error apparent on the face of record and reasoning assigned by this Court in the impugned judgment and there is no valid ground for review the impugned judgment under the provisions of Order 47 of CPC. Accordingly, this review application is liable to be dismissed. He further submits that under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. He next submits that the law is well settled that even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous, the same cannot be ground to review the same in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is beneficial to quote para 11 of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Seikh Haidar Zan vs. Md. Yusuf Ansari & Anr. reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 338.

“11. The Special Bench in Ramkrit Singh vs. The State of Bihar (supra) held in no uncertain terms, "the consolidation operation closes by issue of notification envisaged in Section 26A". A Division Bench of this Court in Chandrashekhar Singh vs. Ram Lakhan Singh, 1981 BBCJ 188 : 1979 PLJR 547 while considering the duration of abatement of suit and/or appeal u/s 4(c) of the Consolidation Act held that abatement operates from the date of notification u/s 3 till the close of the consolidation operations u/s 26A. If I may say so, this has been the consistent view of this Court. It is well settled that if a provision of the statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not open to the court to give its own interpretation. It may be that after register of lands and the consolidation scheme have been finally published and the certificate of transfer has been granted u/s 15, for all practical purposes the consolidation operation comes to an end. As a matter of fact, u/s 14 of the Act, the final consolidation scheme also comes into force with effect from the date notified in that behalf. However, coming into force of the consolidation scheme is one thing and close of the consolidation operation is another thing for the purpose of continuance of the effect and consequence of notification u/s 3. As seen above, vide Sect