O R D E R

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 138 days in filing the above Review Application.

2.The petitioner / plaintiff has filed O.S.No.392 of 2007 for declaration to declare the sale deed dated 17.06.1974 as null and void and for other reliefs. The above suit was dismissed for default due to the non appearance of the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner filed restoration petition along with a petition to condone the delay of 1383 days in filing the restoration petition. The Court below dismissed the condone delay petition, against which, the petitioner filed CRP(MD).No.2221 of 2015. This Court after considering various decisions on the aspect of delay, dismissed the above revision petition as devoid of merits holding that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for the above huge delay of 1385 days except making vague averments accusing his Advocate for the delay. Seeking to review the said order, the petitioner has filed the present review application with the delay of 138 days. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has reiterated the grounds raised in the revision petition.

4.The power of this Court in matters of review is very limited.

Such power can be exercised only when there is error apparent on the face of the record or in the event an order is not reviewed, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. For the said proposition, we may usefully refer to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in Union of India, rep by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai, Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division Bench has made a complete survey of several Judgments of the Supreme Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in Paragraph No.10, held as follows:-

"10. In yet another Judgment reported in 2013 (8)

SCC 320, [Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others], the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier has held as follows"

"12. This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient......."

In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles as under:

"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

Summary of the principles:

20.Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute:

20.1 When the review will be maintainable:-

(i). Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii).Mistake or error apparent on the face of record;

(iii).Any other sufficient reason.

The words 'any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1 SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013)

8 SC 275.

20.2.When the review will not be maintainable:-

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudicat