The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of review jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to cases of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

( 1 ) IT is aptly said "a Judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he could and should iron out the creases". These famous words of Lord Denning are quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in P. Nalla Thampy v. B. L. Shanker, AIR 1984 SC 135. We are also here required to iron out some such creases which have surfaced on account of difference of opinion between two Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench of this Court while deciding this Review Petition arising from the Order dated 28-6-2000 passed by Single Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 497/1998.

( 2 ) LATE Kanhaiyalal who has since died and now represented by the respondents, filed a suit No. 66-A/1990 in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Khilchipur, against the present applicant Ratanlal and others for declaration and injunction in respect of certain agricultural lands. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 25-6-1992 and the appeal (No. 38-A/1997) filed by the defendants including the present applicant was also dismissed by Ist Additional District Judge, Rajgarh, vide his judgment and decree dated 21-7-1998. Out of the unsuccessful defendants, only the present applicant - defendant came in Second Appeal before this Court. Learned single Judge before whom the appeal came up for admission, dismissed the same in motion hearing in following terms :"perused the record. No substantial question of law is involved for adjudication. Dismissed".

( 3 ) APPLICANT Ratanlal moved application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the aforesaid order of dismissal, mainly on the ground that no reasons were supplied by the learned single Judge for dismissing the appeal so as to indicate that the Judge has applied his mind to the points raised in appeal memo. According to the applicant this infirmity in the order stares in the face and manifests clear case of error, apparent on the face of the record.

( 4 ) INITIALLY the application for review was placed before the Judge who dismissed the appeal but as the Judge was transferred, the matter, as per Rules, was placed before the Division Bench of this Court. However, the two Hon'ble Judges who heard the Review petition differed from each other and recorded conflicting opinions. The matter was initially sought to be referred to a third Judge, but as no question for such a reference was formulated by the Division Bench, the matter, by the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been placed before the Full Bench. This is how the matter has come up before us and only a short but important question requiring determination is "whether non-supply of detailed reasons or as a matter of that even brief reasoning while dismissing the second appeal in motion hearing would be a case of mistake or error apparent on the face of record so as to constitute a ground for review"?

( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. M. G. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. T. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents.

( 6 ) MR. Upadhyay, learned counsel for applicant with his usual vehemence contended that the second appeal filed by the applicant should not have been dismissed in limine without assigning proper reasons. Even when the appeal was disposed of under Order 41, Rule 11 of CPC, it was mandatory on the part of the Judge to have passed a speaking order so as to make it clear that he has applied his mind to the facts and features of the case and the grounds taken by the applicant in his Memo of Appeal, submitted the counsel. Passing of an order in a cryptic manner like the one in hand, asserted the counsel, is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and is, therefore, liable to be re-called. Mr. Upadhyay has cited a catena of rulings in support of his contentions, vide Mahadev, AIR 1972 SC 1932, Umakant, AIR 1973 SC 218, Peera, 1996 (11) MPWN 151, and Jayanmti De, 2000 (11) MPWN 209. The opposition is equally vehement. Mr. T. N. Singh, learned counsel for respondents con