Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—This is a First Appeal From Order under Order XLIII Rule 1(w) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vinod Swaroop, learned senior counsel for the sole respondent.

3. This appeal arises against the order dated 14.12.2010 passed in Review Application No. 01-A/2006 (Devbrat Mishra v. Satya Prakash Pandey and others) arising out of Civil Appeal No. 311 of 1999 (Keshavanand and others v. Devbrat Mishra and others) by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Allahabad whereby the review application has been partly allowed.

4. According to Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order passed on the review application is patently illegal for the reason that none of the ingredients under Order XLVII Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure had been made out. According to him under Order XLVII Rule 1 a review application can be maintainable only if it is established that there has been discovery of new and important matter or evidence which even after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant and hence could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed. The second ingredient is that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of record. The third reason, according to him, is for any other sufficient reason. Sri Agarwal while referring to the impugned order has pointed out that the review application has been entertained for two reasons. The first reason is that the Court reviewing the judgment was of the view that the earlier Presiding Officer while passing the judgment under review had not read the compromise application 64 Ka in a correct manner and the second reason was that the earlier Presiding Officer had erred in accepting the signature of Devbrat Mishra on the compromise application 64 Ka.

5. According to Sri Agarwal the first reason cited in the impugned order is clearly not a reason for review as contemplated under Order XLVII, but at the most such illegal finding on a mis-reading of a document could be the subject matter of appeal.

6. According to him in the absence of a report of a handwriting and fingerprint expert the Court is competent to compare the signature by a bare perusal and record its findings. For the second submission Sri Agarwal has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531.

7. Sri Vinod Swaroop, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that a review application is maintainable if there is a finding on account of mis-conception of law or of fact by the Court and such a mistake can be made a ground under review. For this purpose he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the Board of Control for Cricket, India and another v. Netaji Circket Club and others, AIR 2005 SC 592. He has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran and another, (1996) 2 SCC 704, to state that on casting of votes twice by several voters and acceptance of such votes as valid, the Court itself compared the signature in the counter foils alleged to be related to those votes without aid of any expert and it was held that ascertaining on that basis was an erroneous approach of the Court which was not in conformity with the spirit of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Sri Vinod Swaroop has also relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Ram Shakal and another v. State of U.P. and others, 1987 (13) ALR 543 and submits that the help of handwriting and fingerprint expert should be obtained and it was wrong for the Joint Director of Consolidation to himself compare the disputed signatures and hold it genuine when there was a dispute in the writing and the signature.

8. Sri Vinod Swaroop has submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned order that the comparison made in the judgment under review by the earl