Review can be granted for an error apparent on the face of the record or when new and important evidence is discovered, but the petitioner must make out a case for reviewing the order in question.

1. This petition has been filed by the State, seeking review against the judge#31;ment and order dated 9th May, 2008 passed in LPA No. 225/2006, on the grounds taken in the memo of review petition.

2. Respondents have filed their objections and resisted the review petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the averments made in the review petition, order dated 9th of May, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of which review is sought and the objections filed by the respon#31;dents.

4. Before we deal with the merits of the petition at hand, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 114 CPC and Order XLVI1, which provide for review of the judgments and orders, and delineate the grounds on which such reviews can be sought.

"114. Review:

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of small causes, may apply for a review of judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

ORDER

XLVII(R.1-9).

REVIEW

1. Application for review of judgement

Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any order made against him, may apply for a review of judgement to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."

5. It is beaten law of the land that review can be made when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such error must be a patent error which can be detected on a glance without continuing long drawn discussion and delibera#31;tions. Review can be granted even when there is an error of law while exercising the jurisdiction.

6. Further, review can also be sought on the ground when it is averred that new and important matter of evidence was discovered which was not within the knowledge of the review-petitioner and could not been discovered even after exercising due diligence. The question is as to whether the State has made out a case for granting the review petition.

7. It is seen from the record that Respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service vide Government order No. 3-GAD dated 27.02.1986, which order was subject matter of the writ petition (SWP No. 393/1987). The Writ Court, after examining the case, allowed the writ petition vide judgement and order dated 16.03.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the State Government preferred Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 225/2006), which was on the dockets of this Court till 9th May, 2008.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the case of the parties, a Division Bench of this Court found that there was no reason to entertain the appeal as the appellant, respondent in the writ petition, had not filed any counter to the writ petition. Further, it was also held by the Division Bench that the appellant had already given effect to order passed by the learned Writ Court, which was substantiated by Order No. 4893-96 dated 31.10.2006, indicating that the judgement of the learned Writ Court had already been complied with.

9. We have gone through the writ record, letters patent appeal and the orders passed by the learned Writ Court and the Division Bench. We find that there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Situated thus, review-petitioner, i.e., the State, has not made o