The grounds for review are limited, and the error must be apparent on the face of the record without requiring detailed examination or scrutiny.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC is being filed seeking review of order dated 12.03.2020 passed in S.A. No. 401/2014. The present petitioner/appellant has filed Second Appeal bearing No. 401/2014 before the Hon'ble Court against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, whereby the suit of the petitioner for declaration and perpetual injunction has been dismissed which was affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court. The Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 12.03.2020 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner could not demonstrate the source of title of the property nor any documents in support his contentions are being filed by the plaintiff to show that they are title holder of the property in question. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner/plaintiff/appellant has purchased the property in disputed by way of registered sale deed on 09.09.2016 from the earlier owner namely Shravan @ Sarvan Singh Sikh.

2. In the instant case the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent has admitted the facts and averments mentioned in the memo of plaints but the trial Court has failed to consider that admissions made by the defendant in his written statement moreso the original sale deed was lost by the vendor, therefore, Ikrar Nama i.e. Ex. P/16 has been executed between the parties. The suit filed by the plaintiff in respect of land bearing No. 639 Min Rakva 0.300 hectare in which 0.009 hectare i.e. 40 x 25 ft. plot situated at Kolua Road Ashoknagar, which was subsequently merged in Survey No. 637/2/Min-1. Now the petitioner is having registered sale deed in her favour, therefore, present review petition is being filed. It is submitted that the Court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner merely on the ground that petitioner could not produce registered sale deed in her favour but during pendency of appeal registered sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier sale deed executed has been lost by the stamp vendor, therefore, the petitioner could not produce the same, hence, the present petition deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has subsequently executed a sale deed during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore only seeks a direction that the liberty be extended to him to file the civil suit before the trial Court and the trial Court be directed to consider and decide the civil suit on merits.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. Petitioner counsel could not point out any glaring mistake apparent on the fact of record but has confined his arguments to the extent that liberty be extended to him to file a new civil suit.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a subsequent purchaser. This cannot be a ground for review The law with respect to entertaining the review petition is settled in the case S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission; (2009) 10 SCC 464 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"12. An error contemplated must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie."

7. Further in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta and Anr.; (2008) 8 SCC 612 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"22. The term "mista