An error apparent on the face of the record can be a ground for review of a judgment, and an appeal by one of the defendants is maintainable even though the decree proceeds on a ground common to all the defendants.

1. - This is a petition under Section 114, read with Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., seeking review by Mst. Vaziran, defendant-appellant of judgment & decree dated August 3, 1988 in Civil Second Appeal No. 171/86, which was dismissed.

2. A decree was passed against the appellant-petitioner on January 13, 1984 by Additional Civil Judge, Bharatpur in civil suit No. 372/80. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the judgment & decree on February 1, 1984; the copy was ready on Feb. 3, 1984 but actually was delivered to the petitioner on March 8, 1984 and the appeal was filed before the first appellate court on March 13, 1984. Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the following period-

(a) February 8, 1984 to March 7, 1984 due to illness-Medical certificate & affidavit to support period of illness were filed;

(b) 9th March, 1984 to 12th March, 1984 due to illness-Medical certificate for second time illness was not filed.
First appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal holding it to be time barred. In second appeal by the petitioner, this Court upheld the finding of the first appellate court for the appeal being time barred. Hence this review petition.

3. Shri B.L. Mandhana, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the review petition is maintainable under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. on the grounds that, there is mistake or error apparent on the face of record; and that there is "sufficient reason" to accept the review petition. Learned counsel added that the first appellate court has not held that the petitioner was not ill from February 8. 1984 to March 7, 1984 rather it took note of the fact that Vajiran was suffering from fever and bronchitis for the aforesaid period according to the medical certificate, and then it observed that even assuming that she was ill from 8.2.84 to 8 3.84 then also, she was required to explain the delay for 9.3.84 to 12.3.84. According to the learned counsel, the first appellate court only discussed & considered about alleged illness between 9.3.84 to 12.3.84 (second time illness) and decided the point against the petitioner. Taking the aid of the above finding of the first appellate court, learned counsel urged that pertinently appellate court held sufficient cause for period from 8.2.84 to 7.3.84 on account of illness of the petitioner and however, the cause of second time illness (from 9.3.84 to 12.3.84) was not held sufficient. In this regard, learned counsel drew my attention to the following circumstances recorded by this Court in second appeal-

"An application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act praying for condoning the delay in filing the appeal was also filed by the appellant No. 1 stating therein that appellant No. 1 was bed ridden because of her illness; and further that, other appellants were attending the appellant No. 1 so they were also unable to file an appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The first appellate court was of the opinion that if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that due to illness the appellant No. 1 was not in a position to file appeal but, there was no reason for not filing the appeal by the other appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are the sons of the appellant No. 1".
At this stage, Shri Mandhana urged that from the above observations it is clear that no adverse finding about illness of Mst. Vajiran during 8.2.84 to 7.3.84 was recorded either by the first appellate court or this Court rather it has been held that Mst. Vajiran remained ill in-between 8th February and 7th March, 1984. Taking the aid of such observations, Shri Mandhana vociforcely contended that such observations duly come within the ambit of 'apparent error on the face of record' warranting review.

4. Learned counsel for Smt. Vajiran then argued that Smt. Vajiran cannot be penalised for the negligence of other appellants. Her appea