The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review can only be exercised when the statute provides for the same, and in the absence of such provision, the power of review cannot be exercised.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Z. Ahmed, learned counsel for the claimants/ respondents.

2. The present review petition is filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the Judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 481/2017.

3. The ground of seeking review is that six grounds urged in the appeal memo was not considered by this Court while passing the judgment dated 06.12.2022 and accordingly, there is an error apparent on the face of record in passing the judgment and order dated 06.12.2022.

4. The grounds according to the review petitioner which are not considered by this Court are as follows:-

“A. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in law as well as in facts in not considering that vide order dated 22.02.2022 the I.A.(Civil) No. 2398/2021 filled under Order XLI Rule 3 was allowed. Vide the said order the additional grounds were allowed by this Hon’ble Court to be treated as grounds in the memo of appeal. But while passing the judgment dated 06.12.2022 there is no mention about these additional grounds by this Hon’ble Court. This is error apparent on the face of the record. Thus the judgment deserves to be reviewed and set aside.

B. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in law as well as in facts in accepting the income of the deceased to be Rs. 14,300/- (Rupees fourteen thousand three hundred) as per Exhibit-7 whereas as per Exhibit-7 itself after deduction of the professional tax the amount came to Rs. 14,092.00 (rupees fourteen thousand ninety two). This is error apparent on the face of the record. Thus the judgment deserves to be reviewed and set aside.

C. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in law as well as in facts in not considering that, defense evidence was adduced in the case which this Court has mentioned in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 06.12.2022, but there is no reason given whether this defense evidence is accepted or rejected. This is error apparent on the face of the record. Thus the judgment deserves to be reviewed and set aside.

D. For that this Hon’ble Court erred in law as well as in facts in not considering that an amount of Rs. 11,53,596/- (rupees eleven lakhs fifty three thousand fie hundred ninety six) was deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Hon’ble Court on 27.11.2017. But in the judgment dated 06.12.2022 there is no mention of this amount. This is error apparent on the face of the records. Thus the judgment deserves to be reviewed and set aside.

E. For that this Hon’ble Court has not discussed the ground No. E regarding the rat of interest which was challenged in the MAC Appeal. Moreover the Court has not decided about the interest on the future prospect income. This is error apparent on the face of the record. Thus the judgment deserves to be reviewed and set aside.

F. Fort that in any view of the matter the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2022 is bad in law for non consideration of the above mentioned grounds. This is error apparent on the face of the records. And as such the judgment is liable to be reviewed and set aside.”

5. Perused the judgment. In the judgment itself, at paragraphs – 7 and 8, the Court has specifically recorded the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not a case that the aforesaid six grounds pleaded in the appeal memo were also urged and argued by the learned counsel during the course of hearing and that this Court has not considered such argument. In fact, the aforesaid grounds were not even argued before this Court during the course of hearing.

6. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the present review petition itself is not maintainable under the law.

7. It is by now well settled that power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such provision in the concerned statute, such power of review cannot be exercised.

8. Sectio