Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J. - (1.) This review petition has been preferred assailing the order dated 20.8.2013 passed whereby the writ petition was dismissed holding that it is not a fit case for interference.
(2.) I have perused the record. 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.
(3.) 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.";