The review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

Prakash Krishna, J.—This is plaintiff’s appeal against the order allowing the review application passed by the court below.

2. The plaintiff/appellant filed Suit No. 335 of 1980 against the present respondents for possession over a piece of house described by letters A.B.C.D. in the plaint map. The suit for ejectment and recovery of damages was filed on the allegation that originally one Abdul Qayum was

owner in possession of the disputed property, who sold it by a registered sale deed dated 1.12.1933 in favour of Smt. Usmani Begum. Smt. Usmani Begum by means of registered sale deed dated 26th November, 1956, sold the property in question to the plaintiffs. In the month of September, 1980, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 got a sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 in respect of the disputed property, for a sum of Rs. 6,000. The defendant No. 3 was never the owner or tenant of the disputed property and as such he could not execute the sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The defendants in the written statement accepted that Abdul Qayum was the original owner of the property A.B.C.D. However, they have denied the title of the plaintiff.

4. The trial court framed seven issues. Issue No. 1 is with regard to the ownership of the disputed property A.B.C.D. Issue No. 2 is whether the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the tenants of the plaintiff and if so its effect. Issue No. 3 is whether the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 became the owner of the disputed property in view of the sale deed of the year 1974. Issue No. 4 is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the damages for the unauthorised use and occupation of the defendants over the land in question. The other issues are not relevant for the purposes of the disposal of the present appeal.

5. The trial court decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 23rd February, 1982, on the findings that the plaintiffs are the owners of the house in question. The defendants have failed to prove their title with respect to the land in question. A decree for the defendants with respect to the property A.B.C.D. was passed. Along with it a sum of Rs. 100 per month was awarded as damages in favour of the plaintiffs.

6. The said decree was challenged by the defendant/ respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1982. The IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Bulandshahr, after taking into consideration the evidence on record dismissed the appeal on merit by its judgment and decree dated 10th August, 1990. The appellate court examined the matter in great depth. It has taken into consideration the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties. Ultimately it was found that the plaintiffs have been able to prove their ownership and possession with respect to the disputed property and it was further held that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 came into possession of it as tenants. It has also taken into consideration the sale deed of the year 1974 executed by Mohammad Alam, the defendant No. 3. The appellate court has confirmed the findings recorded by the trial court that Mohd. Alam (defendant No. 3) had no right, title or interest to execute the sale deed. It also considered the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court for the use and occupation of the disputed property by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and confirmed that the award of damages at the rate of Rs. 100 per month is legal and justified.

7. Second Appeal No. 1607 of 1990 was filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in this Court. The second appeal was taken up for consideration along with the aforesaid first appeal from order. The second appeal has been dismissed in default on 29th July, 2004, as the appellant’s counsel did not turn up even in the revised list.

8. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Mohd. Waris and Naseem Ahmad besides filing the aforesaid second appeal in this Court, also filed an application before the court below for reviewing its judgment and decree under appeal. The