A review application must show a manifest error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot involve re-evaluation of evidence or differing conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Dev Choudhury, J.

1. Heard Mr. PP Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R Rabha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present application under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment & order dated 20.02.2023 passed by this Court in FAO No. 5/2021 allowing the appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this application is that the opposite party herein as the plaintiff instituted a suit registered as TS No. 103/2020 against the petitioners herein as defendants, for specific performance of contract and for injunction.

4. Along with the said suit, the appellant preferred an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to restrain the defendants from transferring/ alienating as well as changing the nature and character of the schedule B suit land, which was the subject matter of the contract, of which the plaintiff sought specific performance. The said application was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 111/2020. The learned trial court dismissed the aforesaid Misc case by its order dated 27.04.2021 and declined to pass any order of injunction as sought.

5. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was registered as FAO No. 5/2021.

6. This court, after hearing the parties and perusal of the material available on the record allowed the appeal by judgment dated 20.02.2023 and provided that the defendants shall not change the nature and character of the schedule B land or alienate the same to any 3rd party till disposal of the suit.

7. The present review is filed seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 20.02.2023 as reflected hereinabove.

8. Though different grounds for seeking review were taken in the review petition, however, Mr. PP Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his argument only to one ground and argues that the error apparent on the face of the record is that, in so far as the balance of convenience is concerned, this court concluded that the learned trial court, in its order dated 27.04.2021 found that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and passed the judgment under review, whereas in the order passed by the learned trial court, the learned trial court observed that though there is prima-facie case in favour of the plaintiff but balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury are not in favour of the plaintiff.

9. Per contra, Mr. R Rabha, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this court while considering the appeal had elaborately dealt with the pleadings of the parties including the statement made in the plaint as well as in the written statement and concluded that the three golden principles for grant of injunction were available and accordingly passed the order under review and therefore, the error projected cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this court had not passed the order solely on the ground that the learned trial court had found prima-facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner. This court as an appellate court, after independent appreciation had arrived at the conclusion in the order under review. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, this is not a fit case where this court should entertain the present application.

10. I have given anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

11. The law is well settled that a review application is maintainable on the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, even after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed, or the order was made. Secon