The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, and detailed discussion of citations in the order is not necessary.

JUDGMENT

1. This review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 29/06/2022 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.1812/2022.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11/03/2022 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dabra, District Gwalior in Civil Suit No.13-A of 2009, whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been rejected. It is further submitted that the citations relied upon by the petitioner are quoted by this Court in the impugned order but the same were not discussed in the order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the question of limitation is mentioned, but the the same was neither raised by the defendants before the trial Court nor the trial Court has given any finding with regard to the question of limitation as amendment being barred by law. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that since the aforesaid errors are apparent on the face of record, therefore prayed to review the impugned order dated 29/06/2022 passed in M.P. No.1812/2022.

4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record as would warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, relying on the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & others reported in [(2014) 5 SCC 75], learned Government Advocate prayed to dismiss this review petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC reads as under :-

"47. 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 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.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.â In Board of Control of Cricket India Vs. Netaji Cricket Club (AIR 2005 SC 592), it is observed that the words sufficient reason occurring in Rule 1 is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'. Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd., (AIR 2008 (Gau) 161), it is observed that the review is not an appeal in disguise. The scope of review as well as the appeal is completely different. While the review petition is limited the appellate jurisdiction is wide. In Akhilesh Yadav Vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. reported in (2013 AIR SCW 1316), the Apex Court held that scope of review petition is very limited and submissions made on questions of fact cannot be a ground to review the order. It was further observed that review of an order is permissible only if some mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, which h