Heard. Seeking the review of the judgment delivered by me on 4-8-1994 in S.A. 839 of 1994, under O.47, R.1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present petition is filed. I have rendered the following judgment on 4-8-1994 when the Second Appeal came for admission :-

"Heard the contentions raised by Mr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. While seeking the admission of the second appeal, the learned counsel contended that while reversing the judgment of the trial Court, the appellate Court has failed to consider the document of title, Ex. A.1, the U.D.R. patta granted in the name of the plaintiff and that the said aspect, in the context of the prior mortgage deed created and executed by defendant, has clearly established the title of the appellant/plaintiff to the suit property. In this context, I have perused the judgment of both Courts below and the findings given by the lower appellate Court with reference to Ex. A-1 in the context of the title, viz., mortgage deed executed by the defendant which is anterior to Ex. A-1 it is perfectly correct and at par with law. Except the abovesaid contention, no other material has been placed either before the trial Court, or the appellate Court, to prove the title of the plaintiff. It is to be noted that the case of the plaintiff is one of permissive possession given to the defendant to put up a hut and live therein. However, accordingly the hut was put up and the defendant is in occupation of the suit property. Under the circumstances, the title of the plaintiff is seriously disputed. It is well settled judicial pronouncement that the person who seeks remedy before the Court of law, by filing a suit, must discharge his onus and prove his case, by acceptable and cogent evidence and by avoiding the same, he cannot be allowed to stand on the legs of the defendant. While applying this legal ratio enumerated by the judicial concession, I am at every difficulty to accept that the plaintiff is clearly in the teeth of the above legal ratio. So much so, it cannot be allowed to build his case upon the rights, if any found, on the defendant. For all the said reasons, I find that the lower appellate Court has justifiably come to the conclusion and accordingly reversed the judgment of the learned trial Court. The five questions of law, enumerated in the grounds of appeal, in my respectful view, will not come under the purview of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and inasmuch as the same remains, I am unable to entertain the second appeal. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage." 2. While seeking the review of the above order, Mr. Sudarsana Natchlappah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would frankly concede that there was no error of law or facts apparent on the face of the judgment. But, however his endeavour was that a new fact was found discovered under the pretext of some documentary evidence which directly get itself involved in the instant case and it would give a total guidance for the proper adjudication of the matter in hand; While stating so, learned counsel would advert to O.47, R.1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:

"Any person considering himself aggrieved

(a) and (b) x x x x

(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 other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order" .

3. Adverting to the above procedural law, it was argued that the suit property was covered in the patta pas