( 1 ) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ORDER DATED may 11, 2001 AND HAS BEEN FILED ON 12th DECEMBER, 2001, AFTER APPROACHING THE division BENCH IN LPA NO. 281/2001 WHICH WAS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN ON OCTOBER 10,2001.

( 2 ) A VIEW ONCE TAKEN IS NOT REVIEWABLE UNLESS SOME MISTAKE OR ERROR HAS BEEN committed WHICH IS PLAINLY AND PALPABLY APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. AN ERROR can APPROPRIATELY AND PROPERLY BE SET ASIDE BY THE APPELLATE COURT, IF, IN THE LATTER s wisdom, THE EXPOSITION OF LAW OR TREATMENT OF FACTS IS INCORRECT.

( 3 ) THE OBSERVATIONS IN (RAJA) INDRAJIT PRATAP BAHADUR SAHI V. AMAR SINGH AND others, AIR 1923 PC 128, WHICH HAVE STOOD THE TEST OF EIGHTY LONG YEARS, APPLY IN FULL force. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED A REVIEW IS OUT OF question. IN DEV KRISHNA AND ANOTHER V. DHANI RAM SALIGRAM, AIR 1959 MP 217, A division BENCH OF THAT COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE wrongly AND A REVIEW AGAINST SUCH A DECISION IS NOT IN ORDER. ONCE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN addressed ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND A DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED, RECOURSE TO A REVIEW is WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. IN SMT. MEER BHANJA V. SMT