- (1.) S. P. Pandey, Member. This is a review petition to recall the order dated 25-11-1998 passed by this Court in second appeal No. 44 of 1992-93/rampur, preferred by the review petitioner, whereby the aforesaid second appeal being devoid of any merits was dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this review petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the review petitioner and examined the records on file. For the review petitioner, it was submitted that the contentions raised by him have not been appreciated by this Court and as such this Court has committed as error apparent on the face of the record that the material and relevant facts of the instant case have been ignored and an erroneous finding has been recorded on no evidence against the review petitioner and as such the aforesaid impugned order be set aside. I have closely examined the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner and have also gone through the relevant records on file. From a bare perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that this review petition is time barred by five days but no application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has been filed by the review petitioner. Coming to the points of merit, I find that the material and relevant facts and cir cumstances of the instant case have been analysed discussed and considered by the learned trial Court and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that (he plaintiff-appellant cannot be declared bhumidhar with transferable rights over the Gaon Sabha land on the basis of adverse possession. The learned lower appellate Court has correctly upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Having scrutinised the matter in question from all the angles it was found that the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are quite just proper well founded, sustainable and wholly warranted in law. All the relevant aspects of the facts have been properly con sidered in correctpcrspective of law and the evidence led by the parties were also correctly evaluated. No irregularity or il legality on the face of the record was found to have been committed by the learned lower appellate Court so as to warrant any interference in the second appeal by this Court. Hence the aforesaid second appeal being devoid of any merit was dismissed. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, 1 come to the conclusion that this review petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) IN consequence, this review peti tion is here by dismissed in limine. Let the records be returned forthwith to the Courts concerned. Review dismissed. .;