Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 3.1.2014. When the matter came up as a fresh on 5.2.2014, it was directed to be put up the next day i.e. on 6.2.2014 along with the original record of Writ Petition No. 7556 of 2013 wherein the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed. It was further directed that the copy of the review petition be served upon the Counsel appearing for the opposite parties in the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Counsel for the parties. Shri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate, who appears for the applicant -petitioner has submitted that the order is liable to be reviewed because: I. The proceedings arise out of an application under section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, directions have been issued to treat this application filed by the contesting respondent under section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act also. This according to the learned Counsel is an error apparent on the face of the record as an application under section 41 is required to be accompanied by certain documents which have not been annexed to the original application and therefore it cannot be treated as one under section 41 also. II. A large number of authorities were cited on behalf of the applicant at the time of hearing of the writ petition which have not been discussed. It has only been observed that it is not considered necessary to consider them in view of the order that has been passed.
(3.) ELABORATING further on the power of this Court in a review petition, the learned Counsel has referred to the following judgments: - - A. Commissioner of Sales Tax, J & K and others v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and others : 1995 (1) SCC 58 (Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13) B. Inderchand Jain (dead) through L.Rs. v. Moti Lal (dead) Through L.Rs. : 2009 (14) SCC 663 (Paragraphs 7, 8, 31, 33, 34 and 37) C. Union of India v. Namit Sharma,, 2013 (10) SCC 359 :, 2014 (102) ALR 28 (Sum) (Pr. 21,38,39) D. S. Nagraj v. State of Karnataka, : 1993 SCC (Supp) (4) 595 (Paragraph 36) E. Green View Tea & Industries v. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and another : 2004 (4) SCC 122 (Paragraphs 14 & 15);