S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a recall-cum-review petition under Section 151 CPC against the judgment and order, dated 18-9-2003, passed by this Court in revision petition No. 53 of 2001-02 Chitrakoot Kirha v. State, dismissing the same in limine, as not maintainable.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also perused the relevant papers on file. The bone of contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the revision petition, in question, was maintainable in law, it has wrongly been dismissed in limine, as not maintainable. In support, reliance has been placed on the case laws, reported in 2002 RD 515 and 715. Much stress has been laid on the analogy that since the first revision was filed under the old unamended Act, the revision petition, in question, was maintainable, in view of the aforesaid case law, reported in 2002 RD 515. The learned DGC (R), in reply, urged that since the facts and circumstances of the instant case are rather altogether different from those of the reported case, the same are not applicable to the instant case and therefore, this Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the second revision petition by the same person, as not maintainable. Emphasis has also been laid by him that since the revision petition, in question, was highly time-barred and no satisfactory explanation for the delay, caused in filing the same, was forth coming, it was also barred by limitation and therefore, this recall-cum-review petition has rather no merits and very richly deserves dismissal outright. I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned DGC (R) and have also scanned the relevant papers on file as well as the case laws, cited. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the revision petition, in question, was dismissed in limine, as not maintainable, on two counts firstly that the same was a second revision, which is clearly prohibited in law and secondly, that the same was barred by limitation. So far as the first point is concerned, it is unquestionable that this was a second revision, which is not maintainable in law. The case laws, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are of no help to him in this respect for the simple reason that the facts of the instant case are rather quite different from those of the reported cases. In the case law, reported in 2002 RD 515, the facts were that the first revision was filed under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and disposed of under Section 219 of the Act, while in the instant case, the first revision was filed and disposed of under the old unamended Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act and the second revision was moved by the same person under the new amended Section 333 of the Act. Moreover, the reported case was under a different Act, the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The case law, reported in 2002 RD 715 too is of no help to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as the larger Bench has only recommended for the delection of the words “To THE BOARD OR', in order to provide the revisional jurisdiction exclusvely to the Board. The aforesaid recommendation appears to be still under consideration and therefore, I am afraid that the aforesaid case laws would, in any way, apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Moreover, it is also pertinent to mention here that the scope of review is rather very limited. As error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of a new evidence only come within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Even a finding, deliberately recorded, howsoever erroneous, it may be, does not come within the purview of review and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that Section 151 CPC under which the instant recall-cum-review petition has been filed, does not come into play, in the instant situation, revision petition, in question clearly being second revision prohibited in law and also being barred by limitation, was dismissed in limine, as not maintainable and therefore, this recall-cum-review petition, having no substance, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.
(3.) IN view of the above, this recall-cum-review petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby, rejected and the impugned order, passed by this Court, is accordingly, confirmed and maintained. Review dismissed.;