JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the review petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondents.

2. When this matter was taken up on 21.01.2026, submissions were advanced on behalf of the review petitioner that the trial Court did not appreciate that the suit was suffering from defect of parties The Collector of the Government of West Bengal and the Settlement Department were not made parties to the suit. The suit was decided by array of defendants who were not competent.

3. The review applicant was trying to reagitate issues decided; or omitted to be decided by the trial Court and the first appellate Court. Therefore, on 21.01.2026 when the matter was taken up we recorded a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of a review application.

4. Today when the matter is taken up, the learned Advocate for the review petitioner submits that review petition is maintainable since there is mistake on the “face of the record”. Submissions have been advanced that the School was not the Head Teacher’s personal property. The decree cannot be executed against an employee of the School. The suit therefore, suffered from a defect of parties. The Head Teacher was an employee and not competent to deliver possession. The Collector was thus the proper and necessary party, but not arrayed as a defendant in the suit.

5. Defect of parties being a vital issue going to the root of the jurisdiction and merit would constitute a substantial error which can be considered under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The first appellate Court did not address this jurisdictional issue and passed an ineffective decree. Therefore, review was a valid remedy in the circumstance.

6. 9 pages written note of arguments have also been submitted substantially containing these issues.

7. The learned Advocate has relied upon decision/decisions in the case of Morshar S/o. Yadaorao Mahaja Vs. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. Lrs. And. Ors. Passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5755-5756 of 2011. This judgment is relied upon to buttress the submission advanced regarding significance and importance of joining necessary party and that if such necessary party is not impleaded the suit itself was liable to be dismissed.

8. The judgment in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, has also been relied upon on the same issue. The learned Advocate in this connection has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733. Reliance placed on these judgment is only an attempt by the review petitioner to re-argue the issue which is decided by the trial Court, the first appellate Court and in which this Court (in a second appeal) did not find any substantial question of law to be involved; and dismissed the second appeal.

9. The learned Advocate for the review petitioner vehemently submits that the point urged is capable of consideration within the limited scope of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In this connection he has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket, India & Anr. Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. reported in AIR 2005 SC 592. He has also relied upon a decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Burma Shell, Oil Storage Distributing Company Vs. Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in AIR 1955 Cal. 92. specific reliance is placed on paragraphs 88 to 90 of the judgment in the Board of Control for Cricket, India (supra). We, however, find that the same does not lend any support in so far as the maintainability of the present review petition to re-argue an issue sought to be canvassed in the present review application.

10. The learned Advocate for the petitioner emphatically submitted that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, apart from discovery of new and important matter which despite due diligence could not be produced, or on account of a