The main legal point established in the judgment is that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized the limited scope of review and the grounds for maintaining a review.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2007 passed by the first appellate court in A.S No 6 of 2005.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the government poramboke street running adjacent to his property from East to West is a public street and that the defendants had no right to prevent the plaintiff from using the same. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he has been using the street to carry fertilizers through lorry or tractor or bullock carts. Aggrieved by the interference of the defendants, the plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.604 of 1997 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or their representatives from interfering with the plaintiff’s usage and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property as street either by erecting obstruction or in any other manner. The defendants resisted the suit claiming that the plaintiff has manipulated the records and that the alleged street is not a government poramboke. After hearing the parties, considering the report of the advocate commissioner and oral as well as documentary evidence, the suit was decreed.

3. Aggrieved, the first and second defendants filed the appeal in A.S No 6 of 2005 before the Subordinate Judge, Gudiyatham. After hearing the parties, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal on 26.06.2006. The first and second defendants, filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC contending that though the appellate court had recorded the width of the street to be only 8 feet has dismissed the appeal and therefore, warranted reconsideration of the entire case as it is an error apparent on the fact of the record. After hearing the parties, the lower appellate court re-appreciated the entire case, allowed the application for review and modified the judgment passed by it earlier and partly allowed the appeal holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to take tractors or bullock carts to his premises. Aggrieved, the present second appeal has been filed.

4. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed ;

1. Whether the judgment of the first appellate judge granting the present relief which is beyond the scope of the suit, overlooking the revenue records exhibited in the suit can be sustained ?

2. Whether the first appellate court was right modifying the decree earlier passed on the basis of a review petition particularly when there was no error apparent on the face of the record?

3. Whether the first appellate court was right in entertaining an appeal in disguise in the form of a review petition?

5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the first appellate court had earlier dismissed the appeal rightly. Again, without any error apparent on the face of the record, the entire matter was re-heard and the earlier order was modified and the appeal has been partly allowed contrary to Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. The learned counsel further contended that the first appellate court has travelled beyond the scope of the suit and held that the plaintiff is not entitled to take the tractors, lorries, etc to his property. The learned counsel further contended that the contention of the defendants that the property is a lane and the plaintiff had never used any vehicle in the suit property was rejected by the trial court. Under the guise of review, the first appellate court cannot exhibit change of opinion and therefore, sought setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2007 modifying the judgment in A.S No 6 of 2005. To substantiate his claim, the learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (5) CTC 365 (Inderchand Jain (D) through LRs. .v. Motilal (D) through LRs.) and prayed for allowing the appeal.

6. Despite several opportunities, the learned counsel for the respondents has not appeared and presented his case. Therefore, this court has decided to pa