JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking review/recall of order dated 27.9.2019 passed by this Court in M.P. No.5070/2019 whereby the petition has been dismissed and order dated 19.6.2017 passed by Civil Judge and order dated 20.9.2019 passed by Additional District Judge have been affirmed.

2. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for he petitioner, submits that at the time of arguments in the petition, the case has been projected as if the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit after issuance of notice dated 28.7.2017 by the Tehsildar u/s. 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), but the fact remains that the plaintiff filed the suit on 3.2.2017 i.e. much prior to the issuance of notice u/s. 248 of the MPLRC, therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face of record and the order dated 27.9.2019 is liable to be recalled. The petitioner is also seeking review of order dated 27.9.2019 on the grounds which have already been raised and argued on 27.9.2019, in order to justify his possession over the suit land.

3. Though the fact has been mentioned in the order that the petitioner filed the suit after issuance of notice dated 28.7.2017, but this Court has dismissed the petition and upheld the orders passed by the Civil Judge and District Judge on other grounds also. This Court has observed that after the death of Bhuvnesh Sharma, his wife has sold the land to the plaintiff, but unless the right and title of Bhuvnesh Sharma are established, his wife had no right to execute the sale-deed. The record of settlement from the year 1984 to 1988 is not available in the record room of the Superintendent, land Records. Initially, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction only, but now he is going to challenge the order passed by the revenue authorities u/s. 248 of the MPLRC and the order for recalling the entries in the revenue record. Therefore, on the basis of proposed pleadings which are going to be made in the plaint, no case for review is made out. By virtue of subsequent development or proposed amendment, the order cannot be reviewed. The law in respect of scope of review is well settled.

4. The Apex court in case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has summarised the principles of review, the relevant para are reproduce below :-

8. The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the review petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the judgment and order dated 6-7-2012 and satisfies the criteria for entertaining the same in review jurisdiction? Review jurisdiction 9. Article 137 of the Constitution of India provides for review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court which reads as under:

' 137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court . Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. "

10. Order 47 Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for an application for review which reads as under:

' 1. Application for review of judgment . (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved

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

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

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order. "

11. Further, Part VIII Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 deals with the review and consis