ORDER

1.Petitioner has preferred this review petition under Section 114 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC for review of the order dated 24.4.2024 passed in MP No.7588/2023 by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction for the land bearing Survey No.595 area 0.813 hectare and Survey No.601/2 area 0.202 hectare. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner has preferred an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking examination of the thumb impression of respondents No.1 to 5 in the agreement to sale from their thumb impression available in the office of the Registrar, but the trial Court has dismissed his application vide order dated 8.12.2023. Thereafter he filed a Miscellaneous Petition before this Court and vide order dated 24.4.2024 MP No.7588/2023 has been dismissed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the earlier stage the coordinate bench of this Court has erred in not appreciating that the alleged written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 does not bear the thumb impressions of respondents No.1 to 4 as the thumb impression on the last page of the same are not verified by any counsel or witnesses. At the earlier stage the Court has not appreciated that the application filed by the petitioner is well supported by the affidavit and respondents did not file any affidavit in rebuttal. The findings of this court is erroneous on the point that there is no record of having the thumb impression of respondents No.1 to 4. He had placed reliance upon 5 citations but only two have been referred and other 3 are omitted. Thus, a grave mistake has been committed which is apparent on the face of record. Hence, he prays that the order dated 24.4.2024 be reviewed.

4.Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and 8 opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection.

5.Counsel for the parties heard at length and perused the record with due care.

6.In the case of Board of Control for Cricket, India and another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club and others [AIR 2005 SC 592] it has been held that:-

“Section 114 of the Code empowers a court to review its order if the conditions precedents laid down therein are satisfied. The substantive provision of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court except those which are expressly provided in Section 114 of the Code in terms whereof it is empowered to make such order as it thinks fit.

Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.

Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code 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’.”

7.Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Mohammed Imaan Vs. Chinta Singh and others [2024(1) RN 447] has also held that if the misconception of law and facts, same is ground for review.

8.But, in the instant case all the grounds raised by the petitioner has been duly considered by my predecessor while passing the earlier order dated 24.4.2024. Averment of the written statement and issue regarding signature of respondents No.1 t