Point of Law: Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT :

Order on Civil Misc. Review Petition No.178479 of 2011.

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate on behalf of review-applicant, Sri Satish Chandra Mishra, Sri Navin Sinha, and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kapil Misra, Sri Ramanand Gupta, and Sri Vineet Sankalp learned counsel for the defendant-appellant.

2. The present review petition has been filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'applicants') praying for the review of the judgment of this Court dated 25.05.2011 whereby this Court has allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to decide the same after giving the full opportunity of hearing to the parties and after getting the property in dispute identified.

3. The necessary facts for the present case detailed in the judgment dated 25.05.2011 are as under :-

4. The applicants instituted a suit praying that defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as appellants) may be restrained from interfering with the possession over the plot shown by letters 'A, B, C & D' in the map attached with the plaint and boundaries given at the foot of the plaint.

5. The plaint case was that the father of the applicant E.M. Boyce was a permanent lessee of three Bighas, four Biswas equivalent to two acres situated in Civil Lines under a lease deed dated 01.09.1919 executed by Radhabai Zamindaria, widow of one Harlal Bhorey. There was a stipulation in the lease deed that lessees have no right to transfer the aforesaid land without permission of Zamindaria. Subsequently, Smt. Sarjoobai daughter of Radhabai on 05.06.1942 deleted the clause in the lease deed which prohibited the applicants to transfer the lease without permission of Zamindaria. A document to this effect was signed by Sri Rewa Shankar Bhayal as 'Muktar-e-am' of Smt. Sarjoobai. A further case in the plaint was that the leased plot was part and parcel of a big plot whose number was 158 in the settlement of 1865. The said plot was divided into 22 plots in the settlement year of 1297 and the land of three bighas and four Biswas was converted into plot nos.296, 297, and 298 in the settlement of 1346 fasli. The applicants are in possession of the aforesaid plots since 1919. It is further stated in the plaint that the appellant purchased the aforesaid land from defendant no.2 (Rewa Shankar Bhayal), and thereafter, they submitted an application before the S.D.O. concerned for demarcation. The Kanoongo, thereafter, inspected the spot for demarcation of land purchased by appellants, and the same was done on 14.03.1982.

6. The appellants contested the suit by filing a written statement contending inter-alia that the applicants are neither lessee nor in possession of plots marked by letters A, B, C & D and red lines in the map attached to the plaint. The appellants also denied the right of applicants over the land shown by letters C, G, K & J. The appellants further pleaded that the land shown by letters A, B, C & D in the map attached with the plaint was never leased out under the said lease, and boundaries given in Suit No.441 of 1993 do not tally with the lease dated 01.09.1919. Besides the above averments, the appellants took several other pleas and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

7. The trial court by judgment and order dated 30.07.1983 decreed the suit of the applicants for the land shown by letters A, B, C, & D, but dismissed the suit for the land shown by letters C, G, K & J. The trial court also held that the land shown by letters A, B, C & D belongs to the applicants and they are in possession over the same.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellants preferred Civil Appeal before the District Judge, Jhansi. The applicants filed a cross objection against the judgment and order passed by the trial court. The appellate court by judgment and order dated 18.10.1988 confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by th