S.R.YADAV, J. - (1.) THIS is a review petition against order dated 17-12-2003 passed by this Court on the ground mentioned in the review application. On receipt of the said review application parties were given notice and in response thereof opposite side appeared.
(2.) ON the appearance of the opposite-party the learned Counsel for the review petition moved an application for filing certain papers as additional evidence. On the last date 22-4-2004 the application for granting time for filing additional evidence has been rejected because no such evidence can be entertained during the hearing of review petition. The learned Counsel for the opposite-party submitted that review petition had limited scope, that in review petitioner the case could not be re-opened for hearing on the facts already adjudicated and a finding thereof recorded. In support of the said submissions the learned Counsel for the opposite-party referred RD 1982 page 205, ALR 2000 page 788 and ALR 1999 page 315. In addition to above submissions and references the learned Counsel for the opposite-party also submitted that while dealing with second appeal the Court had discussed all the points involved in the matter and had not over-looked any point raised by the review petitioner during the course of arguments. Hence it was only to linger on the matter that a review petitioner was moving one or the other application for adjourning the case and was trying to file the some additional evidence against the provisions for hearing the review petition.
(3.) IN view of the above discussions and submissions I am of the opinion that review petitioner have very limited scope and the same cannot be heard against the established and set provisions of statute. The very effort of the review petitioner to file fresh evidences in review petition shows that there is much substance in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the opposite-parties. The review petitioner has not pointed out any such point which have been over looked by this Court while hearing and deciding the second appeal by order dated 17-12-2003. As the referred citations are very clear on this point that even nor view can be entertained on the grounds of erroneous orders passed by the Court while the order dated 17-12-2003 has been passed after considering each and every point raised for review petitioner. Review petitioner wants to re-open the same is beyond the scope of review petition. In the said circumstances I do not find any force in the review petition hence the same is liable to be dismissed.;