A review application is not maintainable if the judgment complained of is appealable.

( 1 ) BY this review application under O. 47, R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendants/petitioners have prayed for review of the judgment dated 10th December, 1990 passed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amulya Kumar Nandi, as His Lordship was then, in Civil Order No. 1516 of 1988.

( 2 ) THE original revision was directed against Order No. 249 dated 6-6-88 passed by the learned Munsif, Lal Bagh, District Murshidabad in Title Suit No. 258 of 1978.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioners it was contended that previously there was an inspection and in the petition for inspection it was stated that the defendants removed the southern window, of east facing room and filled up that portion by brick on 22-3-88. It was found by the Commissioner that the allegation of the plaintiff was not correct. 4 By a second petition the plaintiff again prayed for local inspection alleging that the defendants had removed the window on the eastern wall of the southern room. That prayer was allowed by the learned Munsif, which was the subject matter in the revision.

( 4 ) CONTENTION was raised for the petitioners before that Court that a second petition for inspection is not maintainable. That view was upheld by the revision Court. But the learned single Judge also held as under :-"but here the points for inspection in two different petitions are completely different. "

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the present petitioners this observation or finding of the learned single Judge in revision is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate Mr. J. K. Gupta for the petitioners herein contended that the said finding and/or observation is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and as such, the judgment should be reviewed.

( 7 ) HIS next contention was that as the review matter has been assigned to this Court by the Hon'ble Chief Justice due to non-availability of justice Nandi as he has superannuated there is no bar for the transferee Court in the instant case in my Court, to hear and dispose of the review application.

( 8 ) IN support of his submission he relied on two decisions, to wit, Subbiah v. Muthuswamy reported in AIR 1984 Mad 206 and Bhera v. Board of Revenue reported in AIR 1975 Raj 55.

( 9 ) IN case of Subbiah, AIR 1984 Mad 206 (supra) a single Judge of Madras High Court has held, inter alia, that "a practical and reasonable interpretation to be put upon the words occurring in O. 47, R. 1, C. P. C. , viz. , to the Court which passed the decree or made the order" would be to include within its scope also the court to which the proceeding stand transferred. Such an interpretation would make available the remedy conferred under O. 47, R. 1 of the C. P. C. , to an aggrieved person and the transferee Court will also be free to deal with such an application when made before it. A contrary interpretation would not only prevent the remedy being availed of by an aggrieved person, but would also in some cases result in utter confusion and may render nugatory, the remedy itself.

( 10 ) MR. Gupta further contended that R. 5 of O. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not operate as a bar inasmuch as the said R. 5 contemplates decree or order made by two or more Judges. In the instant case as the judgment or order has been passed by a single Judge R. 5 of O. 47 has no application.

( 11 ) IN this connection he referred to the Rajasthan decision of Bhera's case (supra) where it has been held that right of review is not totally barred if the Judge or Judges who heard the matter under review are not available for some reason.

( 12 ) ON the above submission Mr. Gupta prayed for review of the decision under consideration.

( 13 ) MISS Jayashree Banerjee the learned advocate for the opposite party, on the other hand, contended that if the Judge or Judges who passed the decree or order is/are not available in such event no other Judge can hear the review application in view of R. 5 of O. 47 of th