An application for review without the copy of the order or judgment sought to be reviewed is competent, but it should be accompanied with an affidavit if made on certain grounds.

1. . - Case has been listed on defect side. The Registry raised objection in respect of non-filing of the certified copy of the order under review.

2. I have heard Mr. J.P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. Order 47 Rule 3 provides thus:-

"3. Form of application for review. -The provisions as to the form of referring appeals shall apply, mutatis and mutandis, to application for review.
Order 41, Rule 1 postulates that every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. The memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and unless the appellate court dispenses therewith of the judgment on which it is founded. It appears that on the basis of the provisions contained in Order 47, Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code the registry raised objection in respect of non-filing of the certified cope of the order under review.

4. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 46 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in that behalf, Rules of the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan 1952 were enacted. Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan 1952 (in short the Rules) provides that every memorandum of appeal or application for revision shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or formal order against which the appeal or application is directed. According to Rule 131 of the Rules, every memorandum of appeal or application for review or revision shall state the name and address of the party, name of the court, the number and description of the case, date of the order or decree impugned, the grounds and precise relief, value for purposes of jurisdiction and court fee etc. Evidently, it has nowhere been mentioned in the said rules that the copy of the order under review shall be accompanied with the application for review. Only Rule 136(1) says that an application for review made on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence or any other sufficient reason shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting out in the form of a narrative. The material facts and circumstances including names and dates where necessary on which the applicant relies.

5. In Jowand Singh v. Ala Singh, AIR 1938 Lahore 295 , it was indicated that under Order 47, Rule 3 it is not necessary nor is it the practice of courts in the Punjab to require a petitioner for review to file a copy of the order sought to be reviewed, as the application is made in the same court and the previous order is on its own record. Nor does the law require that an application for review should invariably be accompanied by an affidavit."

In Gangaram Nathuram v. Behari Lal Brijlal, AIR 1952 Bhopal 39 , it was held that "according to the practice of the Judicial Commissioner's court at Bhopal copies of judgment and decree or copy of order sought to be reviewed are not required to be filed along with the application for review. Hence, an application for review filed within limitation is perfectly competent even if not accompanied with copies of judgment and decree."

6. As the Rule of this Court did not expressly provide that in the case of application for review, the application should be accompanied by a copy of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. I hold that the application for review without the copy of the order or judgment sought to be reviewed is competent. But it should be accompanied with an affidavit if the application for review is made on the ground of discovery of new and important matter of evidence or any other sufficient reason. If it is made on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record then even filing of the affidavit is not necessary.

7. In view of what I have discussed hereinabove, I overrule the objection of the Registry. Let the matter be listed for admission on 4