The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case under the garb of review.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for review of the judgment and order dated 4/3/2004, by which the special appeal filed by the present applicant stood dismissed against the judgment and order dated 21/6/2002 of the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 stood allowed, quashing the order dated 30/9/1995, impugned in the writ petition, with a direction to the other respondents to pay the salary to the said respondent No. 1 month by month.

( 2 ) THERE has been an inter se dispute between the applicant and Shri Vinod Shanker Tiwari, respondent No. 1 as petitioner had also put her claim for the same post. However, the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 stood allowed. Being aggrieved, applicant filed the special appeal, which stood dismissed by the aforesaid judgment and order. Hence this review application.

( 3 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the materials available on record.

( 4 ) THIS review application has been filed not by the counsel who had argued the matter earlier, but by a different counsel which is not generally permissible in view of the decision of the honble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr, air 1997 SC 1005. Thus, we are very much doubtful regarding the maintainability of the review petition itself.

( 5 ) SHRI H. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has raised large number of issues and tried to persuade the Court that the matter requires to be heard de-novo. As the Court while deciding the appeal failed to take into consideration issues involved in the appeal. In the review application it has been urged as under: (a) The learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench failed to appreciate that the order of appointment of respondent No. 1 Vinod Shanker Tiwari dated 26/6/1993 was a forged document. (b) The Court failed to notice that before issuing the order of appointment dated 26/6/1993, no prior approval as envisaged under Regulation 101 of Chapter III of Regulation framed in intermediate Education Act had been obtained from the District Inspector of Schools. (c) The mistake had occurred in considering the letter of appointment of Vinod Shanker Tiwari dated 26/6/1993 as it was an appointment for a short term till the regular selected candidate joins the service. (d) The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench misread the order dated 15/10/1994 passed by Shri Ram Ganesh, City Magistrate, Ballia/ In charge District Inspector of Schools, ballia and treating the same that it had declared the appointment of Shri Vinod Shanker Tiwari to be a valid appointment, Though the order had been obtained with collusion and causing conspiracy with the office of D. I. O. S. , Ballia.

( 6 ) FOR this purpose Shri H. N. Singh, was confronted with the memo of appeal and no such ground had ever been taken by the applicant/appellant in the appeal. Nor there is anything on record to show that the aforesaid issues had been agitated before the appeal Court. Thus, the question does arise as to whether, a review petition can be entertained on a ground not urged at the time of hearing of the main petition/appeal.

( 7 ) SECTION 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called c. P. C.) prescribes the limitations for entertaining a review petition. The same are; that the party filing the application for review has discovered a new and important matter or evidence after exercise of due diligence which was not within its knowledge or could not be produced by it 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.

( 8 ) THE aforesaid limitations are prescribed in a crystal clear language and before a party submits that it had discovered a new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced at the earlier stage, the condition preced