Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Kishore Dutta, Susovan Sengupta, Subir Pal
For the Respondents: Saptangshu Basu, Dhiraj Trivedi, Subhabrata Das, Arindam Banerjee

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The Court affirmed that unpleaded facts cannot be used to invalidate judgments, emphasizing the importance of procedural integrity in legal proceedings. [judgement_subject]

2. The review application was primarily based on an alleged factual error regarding the status of proceedings under Section 14T of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Specifically, the original judgment incorrectly assumed that the proceedings were still pending, whereas they had actually been completed prior to the appeal. (!) (!)

3. The Court noted that the fact of disposal of the proceedings under Section 14T was not pleaded or argued during the hearing of the appeal, and thus, the Court did not consider it in its judgment. This omission meant that the Court's earlier observations were based on the factual matrix presented at the time. (!) (!)

4. The Court clarified that errors not pleaded or argued cannot be classified as errors apparent on the face of the record, and such omissions do not constitute grounds for review. The judgment was based on the facts as pleaded and argued, and the failure to include the subsequent disposal of proceedings was not an error that could be rectified through review. (!) (!)

5. The Court reiterated that the absence of any material indicating that the proceedings under Section 14T had been disposed of prior to the appeal's filing supported the conclusion that no error was committed in the original judgment. The Court also emphasized that the original decision was made considering the factual situation as presented during the appeal. (!) (!)

6. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent on the record that would warrant its reconsideration. The judgment under review was upheld, and there was no order as to costs. (!)

7. The Court underscored that a review cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal and that procedural delays or the non-pleading of facts do not constitute grounds for review unless they reveal an error apparent on the face of the record. (!) (!) (!)

8. The decision highlighted the importance of timely and complete pleadings and the reliance of courts on the factual matrix as pleaded and argued by the parties at the time of hearing. (!) (!)

These points collectively reflect the Court's reasoning and final decision regarding the review application, emphasizing procedural discipline and the significance of pleaded facts in judicial proceedings.