The limitations of review proceedings and the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC were established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

Heard Mr. D Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Ali, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is for review of the judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed in RSA 150/2013. The ground for review is reproduced here-in-below:-

"(iii) For that the finding of this Hon'ble Court while deciding substantial question of law No. 3 to the effect that the evidence of admission of the plaintiff/respondent is of no help to the defendant appellant No. 1 since there is no counter claim for declaration of right of the defendant/ appellant No. 1 to possess the Kha Schedule land is erroneous inasmuch as there is no need to file counter-claim by the appellant/defendant No. 1 because such admission on the part of the mother did not entitle the petitioner/plaintiff a decree at least for the land measuring 8 lechas with house standing thereon. The said admission is in effect an abandonment of a part of her claim. Even assuming that there was no formal expression of her desire to abandon a part of her claim, considering the question that - (I) the petitioner has established clearly in the trial that the house standing on 8 lechas of land so abandoned by the mother with knowledge of the mother and others was constructed by the petitioner, (II) the case is between a mother and her son, (III) there are materials to show that the brother of the petitioner had a hand in the institution of the suit and (IV) it came out spontaneously from the heart of the mother that she does not have the intention to evict the petitioner from at least 8 lechas of land, this Hon'ble Court ought to have protected the land measuring 8 lechas in possession of the petitioner and the house standing thereon."

3. The petitioner was the defendant/appellant no. 1 in the second appeal. Mr. Mozumdar supporting the aforesaid ground for review submits the truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial process. The power of the court is to be exercised with an object to sub-serve the cause of justice and for getting the evidence in aid of just decision to uphold the truth. In support of his submission Mr. Mozumdar relies on the case law of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs., (2012) 5 SCC 370. Seeking invocation of the power under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC it is the contention that during the cross examination of the plaintiff mother she expressed in her cross examination that she had no objection if the defendant/appellant no. 1 remains over 8 lechas of land. Referring the said statement of the plaintiff mother Mr. Mozumdar wanted to link it to the natural bond of the mother towards her son. In the present case in hand, the plaintiff is the mother and the defendant/appellant no. 1 is her younger son. For the said reason in order to bring out the truth the relief sought for by the plaintiff/ respondent no. 1 for her declaration of right, title and interest over 'Ka' schedule land and confirmation of her possession in respect of land of Schedule 'Kha' with that of Schedule 'Ka' after dismantling and removing all constructions made by the principal defendant may be modified invoking the power under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC.

4. Mr. Ali, on the other hand, objected to the said submission of Mr. Mozumdar on the ground that the jurisdiction under Order XLVII of the CPC cannot be exercised inasmuch as the petitioner failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the judgment. Referring to the judgment Mr. Ali submits that the same contention was made at the time of hearing of the second appeal and to that effect after considering the said submission the court passed the reasoned judgment and once the court heard the submission and passed the judgment there is no further scope for review of the said judgment. In support of his contention Mr. Ali r