Uma Nath Singh, J. - (1.) THIS review petition under Chapter V, Rule XII of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2010 passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No. 1357 (MB) of 2010 (Gyan Singh Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and others) on the grounds that by passing this judgment the discretion vested in the Central Registrar under the Multi -State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (for short 'The Central Act') has been eroded; the Northern Railway Primary Cooperative Bank Limited (for short 'the NRPCB') would not become a Multi State Cooperative Society only by the operation of the deeming provisions as provided under Section of the Central Act, the Central Registrar was not impleaded as opposite party and the Central Registrar has held that the U.P. Postal Primary Cooperative Bank Limited is not a Multi State Cooperative Society as its objects are limited only to the State of U.P.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the records. At the very outset, it would be apposite to note that the review of a judgment or order as provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, could be sought only on the grounds like: (a) that there is discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) that some important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) that there was some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or there is any other sufficient reason. It is also settled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. In the judgment of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tiruymale reported in : (1960) 1 SCR 890, it has been held as under: An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self -evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ.
(3.) FURTHER that this ratio has been reiterated in the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumiri Devi reported in : (1997) 8 SCC 715. The observations of Hon'ble the Apex Court reads as: Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.;