Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.

ORDER :

Heard on the question of admission.

1. The instant review petition under Order 47 Rule (1) r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking review of order dated 23.01.2024 passed in W.A. No. 1341/2022, whereby the writ appeal has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petition has been filed by the respondent being aggrieved with the orders passed in Case No. 1063- One/13 and 1064-One/13 dated 17.09.2014 by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior whereby the petitioner's revision was allowed and the mutation of Survey No. 219, area 0.314 Aare was ordered to be made as per the sale deed. The respondents being aggrieved by the said order challenge the same by filing a writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court and the learned Single Bench of this Court passed the impugned order dated 08.12.2021 after elaborate discussion of the facts and law held that the respondent Govind (present petitioner) has sold 0.314 hectare of land bearing Survey No. 219 and again the same land was sold by Chaturbhuj Das to Suresh Kumar, Radha Krishna, Ajay Kumar and Amit Kumar (present respondents). The petitioner filed a review petition before the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed in writ appeal pointing out that none of the Courts below considered that in the sale deed the word "Aare" has been mentioned instead of "Hectare", therefore, the order passed in writ appeal may be recalled. He further submitted that the Writ Appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing the writ appeal and pointed out that the findings given in para 11 and 13 of the impugned order are incorrect. Hence, the review petition may be allowed the order impugned may be recalled and, thereafter, hear the appeal afresh.

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

5. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:-

“Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred;

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.

6. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words:

“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.

(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.

1[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall n