The scope of review of a judgment is limited to the error apparent on the face of the record, and the mere possibility of two views on the findings recorded cannot be a ground for review.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Gupta, applicant/appellant in person, Sri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This review application under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant/appellant in the judgmnet passed by this court in First Appeal No. 296 of 2018 (Sanjeev Gupta vs. Ritu Gupta) decided by the judgment dated 24.05.2019 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2018, passed by Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-II, Ghaziabad, in Case No. 2274 of 2013 (Ritu Gupta vs. Sanjeev Gupta), under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act granting divorce has been affirmed.

3. The review application has been filed by the applicant/appellant along with affidavit with the prayer to allow the same and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned court below.

4. From the perusal of the review application, we find that in the review application, it has not been stated that on what grounds, the review of judgment of this Court has been sought. In the affidavit, however, certain grounds have been mentioned and the applicant/appellant has referred certain observations in the judgment of this Court as well as in the judgment of the trial court and referring to the observations made in paragraphs no. 7 to 10, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22 to 29 he has put forward submission to counter the findings of this Court showing that the findings have been erroneously recorded. The judgment of this Court is of 32 paras and out of that 16 paras have been referred in the review application which according to the applicant-appellant are erroneous. There is difference between erroneously recorded finding and the error apparent on the face of the record. If the finding does not suit to the applicant/appellant, the same cannot be said to be erroneous. Against erroneous finding, the remedy lies in the form of special appeal etc. While deciding the review application, this Court is not expected to reopen the whole case and re-examine the whole findings.

5. The review lies in view of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure on following grounds :-

"Section 114 C.P.C. (Review)

Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved :-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit."

6. None of the above grounds appears to have been raised in the review application and merely commenting and criticizing the observations is not within the scheme of Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite side has filed a counter affidavit stating that the opposite party namely Ritu Gupta has already married after the decision with one Gaurav Setia and the marriage has been registered on 29.07.2019. The marriage certificate has also been filed along with counter affidavit as Annexure No. CA-1. The said fact has been stated on affidavit in paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit. As such, the review has lost its efficacy and on this ground alone, the review application is liable to be rejected.

8. So far as the process of reconciliation proceeding under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act is concerned, from the perusal of the order sheet dated 18.07.2018, it is clear that an effort was made for reconciliation but the respondent-wife expressed her unwillingness to live with the appellant-husband for certain reasons and, therefore, with the observation that reconciliation between the parties was not possible, the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing, hence, there is no force in the contention of the appellant that no reconciliation proceeding took place.

9. It is