The limited scope of review under civil procedure permits correction of apparent errors only, not re-litigation based on arguments previously considered.

ORDER :

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. These review petitions were filed by the applicant–petitioner aggrieved from the order dated 28.05.2025 in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 281/2019, titled as Bhori Lal vs. Suva Lal and Others , and SB Civil Revision Petition No. 282/2019, titled Bhori Lal vs. Gulab Devi and Others passed by this Court. Both the revision petitions No. 281/2019 and 282/2019 were filed aggrieved from a common order dated 27.09.2019 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 234/2014 and 25/2014 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metro Headquarters, Sanganer, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2013 in Civil Suit No. 32/2013 was set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds of the review petition, submitted that in para 8 of the order of the Hon’ble Court, it has been observed that both defendants, Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi, on whose applications the decree was set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, were residing at a different place, whereas the service was in fact effected upon them at the address where they were residing on the date of service. He further submitted that even the process server was examined by the review petitioner before the trial court to show that notices were served upon the defendants, Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi, on their correct address, as mentioned in plaint and admitted by other defendnts. He further referred to the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC and submitted that an application to set aside a decree cannot be allowed merely on the ground of irregularity in service of notice. He further submitted that both Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi were duly served with notice and the same stands proved on record, but without considering the evidence of the process server, the revision petitions were decided by Hon’ble this Court. He also submitted that the evidence of the process server has not been rebutted by the respondents, and the said evidence is sufficient to draw a conclusion that proper notice was served upon Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi. He further submitted that neither Gulab Devi nor Suwa Devi were in possession of the land in question, which is in fact in possession of the present petitioner. He also submitted that out of 10 legal heirs of Jagdish, 8 have already accepted the decree and have executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioner. He also submitted that the case of Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi pertains only to irregular service and not to non-service; therefore, the mistake is apparent on the face of the record, and in such circumstances, the review is maintainable and the order passed on a wrong analogy is required to be recalled and reviewed. He also submitted that where 8 defendants have executed sale deed then on basis of application of 2 defendants, entire decree cannot be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the review petition, has submitted that the review petitioner wants to set aside the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court on merits, and for that purpose a review is not maintainable. He further submitted that a very specific observation has been made by the trial court at page No. 13 regarding the residence of Suwa Devi. He also submitted that no notice was ever served upon Suwa Devi, and without serving a notice upon her, the decree was passed. He further referred to page No. 14 with respect to Gulab Devi and submitted that the trial court has observed that there is no service at all upon Gulab Devi. He further submitted that where there is no service, and ex-parte proceedings have