- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners have sought for review of judgment passed by this Court on 17.08.1999 in second appeal no.273 of 1984 on the ground that the petitioners were owners in possession of the said land and the Court has wrongly given presumption that Biphai has started living about 10 years before; that the Lower Appellate Court has considered the evidence of the ownership; that the Commissioner's map found that the disputed property exists at Plot no.546 and the remaining portion exists in Plot no.547; that the suit property being 4 Biswa is completely replace plaintiff's case.
(2.) In Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik & ors., 2006 3 Supreme 125, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the explanation in Rule 1 of the Order XLVII which states that 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 not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection."
(3.) In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon its earlier law laid down in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. (in all the Appeals) v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, 1964 AIR(SC) 1372) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which states one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.";