A review petition cannot be used to reargue a case on merits and must point out an error apparent on the record; otherwise, it is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. This Civil Review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 05.01.2023 in S.A. No.207 of 2014 whereby the said second appeal was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Second Appeal No.207 of 2014 was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 05.01.2023 and thereafter the petitioner filed the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17813 of 2023 which was dismissed by order dated 21.07.2023. He further submits that after the dismissal of the SLP, the present civil review was filed with a delay of 216 days and I.A. No.10729 of 2023 has been filed for condonation of delay. He then submits that Hon’ble the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP in limine and in view of that the Supreme Court has not decided the matter on merit as such, the civil review petition is maintainable as in view of the doctrine of merger of the orders, the order of this Court passed in Second Appeal is not merged with the SLP. He submits that in view of that the case of the petitioner is covered in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. versus Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara reported in Civil Appeal No.2432 of 2019 arising out of SLP (C) No.490 of 2012.

4. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered in view of principle of merger and in view of that this review petition may kindly be entertained. On this ground, he submits that the delay may kindly be condoned and notice in the review petition may kindly be issued upon the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner again repeated the same argument which has already been decided by this Court by order dated 05.01.2023 passed in S.A. No.207 of 2014 and thereafter S.L.P. has been dismissed on merit.

6. Second Appeal No.207 of 2014 was decided by this Court by order dated 05.01.2023 on the point of admission itself and the said second appeal was not admitted on any substantial question of law. It is well settled that the second appeal, if any substantial question of law is involved, then only the second appeal can be admitted. By order dated 05.01.2023, the second appeal was dismissed by an elaborate order that too in a case which was not admitted on any question of law. Petitioner herein lost his case in the Trial Court as well as in the First Appellate Court. The points as to whether the property, which was transferred by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff through registered sale deed of the year 1968, was retained by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff in the SAR proceeding, however restored back to the recorded raiyat in the said SAR proceeding of the year 1974 was decided by the learned Trial Court which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

7. Thus, the said order was passed based on the materials on record and that was a reasoned order. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17813 of 2023 which was dismissed by order dated 21.07.2023 and after the delay of 216 days, the present review petition has been filed. This is not a case that review petition was filed earlier which was not decided by this Court and it was pending and during the pendency of the review petition, the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17813 of 2023 which was dismissed by order dated 21.07.2023. After dismissal of the SLP, the present review petition has been filed after the delay of 216 days which clearly suggests that this was an afterthought of the petitioner.

8. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the issue was with regard to the maintainability of the review petition with regard to the pending review petition and subsequently dismissal of the SLP in that background it was decide