The review jurisdiction has limited powers and cannot remedy purely procedural errors.

S.R. Waghmare, J.

1. This review petition has been filed under Section 11 of the M.P. High Court Rules, 2008 for reviewing the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in M.A. No. 887/2014.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the respondent Sayra Bi had filed the aforesaid appeal and had only prayed for setting aside the order dated 06.03.2014 in MJC No. 13/13 by First A.D.J., Sendhwa, Distt. Barwani. Counsel contended that the MJC had been filed by respondent Sayra Bi because an ex-parte decree had been passed against her in Civil Suit No. 3B/11 by the 02nd Additional District Judge, Sendhwa and the MJC had been filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13. Unfortunately however this MJC had also resulted in a dismissal primarily on the ground of limitation since Sayra Bi had failed to take prompt action for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Counsel candidly admitted that by the order dated 21.01.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 887/2014, this Court had by way of clemency (since the respondent Sayra Bi was a Pardanashin woman and dependent on her lawyer for conducting her case) by imposing costs of Rs. 3,000/- had condoned the delay and set aside the order purely on humanitarian grounds. However, Counsel has vehemently urged before this Court that while allowing the appeal, this Court has in the impugned paragraph held thus:--

"In this light, (if) the delay is condoned and the Trial Court is directed to re-hear the matter. However, by remanding the same, loss shall be caused to the respondent No. 1. And hence, it is directed that the impugned judgment decree is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision in the matter."

And Counsel submitted that such an order was adversely affecting the right of the petitioner plaintiff. Counsel submitted that a valuable right had been accrued to the plaintiff by the judgment and decree passed in COS No. 3B/11 as already stated above and this Court had failed to consider that the respondent Sayrabi was only seeking setting aside of the order passed in MJC No. 13/13 and that would at the most restore the MJC but the judgment and decree could not have been setting aside in COS No. 3-B/11 and it is in this sense Counsel urged that this Court lacked the jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and decree while exercising powers under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the CPC. Counsel also vehemently urged that such an relief was not sought even by the respondent Sayra Bi in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 887/14 and Counsel vehemently urged that this review petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.01.2015 be set aside and the fresh order be passed in the interest of justice.

3. Per contra Counsel for the respondents has vehemently urged the fact that this review petition was also delayed by period of 11 days and sufficient explanation has not been given by the petitioner as required under the provisions of law. Illness and routine old age cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Coming to the main objection Counsel urged that a review petition should be allowed when the error is apparent on the face of the record and such an error, therefore, must be patent and should not require consideration and assessment of materials and evidences recorded in the case. Both the parties according to the Counsel for the respondents were heard on the occasion and the discretion exercised by the Court after hearing both the parties cannot be challenged only on the ground that one out of two views could be taken by the Court. And the petitioner has failed to make out any case warranting review of order. Counsel relied on Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary [AIR 1995 SC 455] and Ishwar Dutt v. Gyan Chand [AIR 1998 Rajasthan 302].

4. Counsel for the respondents also urged the fact that once the appeal had been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of CPC by Sayrabi, this Court would have ample jurisdiction und