The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and relevant legal provisions to determine the jurisdiction of the civil court over agricultural land and the maintainability of suits.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioner as well as Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr.Mohd. Aslam Khan, appearing for the respondents and gone through the records.

2. This review petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 7.10.2013 passed in Second Appeal No.309 of 2013 whereby the second appeal preferred by Mr.Surjeet Kumar and others was dismissed at the admission stage with the observation that it does not contain any substantial question of law. The review-petitioner was appellant no.7 in the second appeal.

3. Mr.Anu Pratap Singh, Advocate was permitted by the Court to assist the review-petitioner to place his submissions as Mr.R.N.Gupta, Advocate who had filed the second appeal on behalf of the appellant/applicant had expressed his difficulties in appearing in the review petition. Serious allegations have been levelled against Mr.R.N.Gupta and Mr.Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as it is said that they deliberately did not file certain important and relevant documents in order to make the case of the appellant/applicant weak.

4. It is submitted by the review-petitioner that the suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable as the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of plaintiff's right in the agricultural land and the proper remedy was to file a suit under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, for declaration of his rights. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sudama Vs. Hansraj; 1981 RD 116.

5. It is further submitted that the suit was barred under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. It is also contended that in view of law laid down in the case of Hari Narain Vs. 4th A.D.J., Azamgarh; 2000 RD 138, if title is disputed, suit for permanent injunction before the civil court is not maintainable rather suit under section 229-B, U.P.Z.A.& L.R. is only maintainable. Thus, the suit filed by Harish Chandra was not maintainable. Learned counsel for review-petitioner also submits that the suit was decreed in violation of Order 7, Rule 11(d) C.P.C. as well as Sections 9 and 54, C.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner has also tried to raise certain contentions on the merits of the orders passed by the Court below which do not require consideration as in the review petition they are not required to be considered at this stage.

7. Mr.Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Sr.Advocate assisted by Mr.Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondents has vehemently opposed the maintainability of the review petition.

8. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury; 1995 SCC (1) 170, it is well settled that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.

9. It is submitted that this review petition has been filed in order to linger on the proceedings. The review-petitioner has intentionally and deliberately made false allegations against earlier lawyers; namely, Mr. R.N.Gupta and Mr.Manoj Kumar Gupta in order to gain sympathy from the Court. The above averments are totally misleading, deliberate and false as the appellant/applicant has engaged Mr.Manoj Kumar Gupta, Advocate to represent him in pending Writ Petition No.79 (Consolidation) 2011 which is relating to the property in dispute. Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta has sought adjournment on behalf of the appellant/applicant in the said writ petition on 18.4.2014. It is also submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record. The review petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and g