- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(2.) THIS revision challenges the order dated 17-10-2006 passed by the Court below dismissing the review petition of the revisionist. A suit for eviction of the revisionist was filed by the opposite-party landlord before the Judge Small Causes Court in which payment of rent till 01-12-2005 was admitted by the applicants. The rent/damages remained due after that date which has admittedly not been deposited as per the requirement under Order XV Rule 5 C. P. C. Accordingly, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the Court below struck off the applicant's defence filed in the case vide order dated 17- 11-2005. Thereafter this review petition has been moved stating that since there was no fault on the part of the revisionist- tenant, the defence was not liable for being struck off. It is further stated that the requirement of the deposit under Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. was not made clear to the tenants by their Counsel and because of this ignorance the deposit could not be made. Finding this ground as non- sustainable for a review petition the Court below has held that the order as such could not be reviewed under circumstances and the petition has been dismissed by the impugned order. The learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist has contended that since there is no deliberate default committed by the tenants and the deposit could not be made because of the Counsel's incorrect advice, there is every cogent ground for the Court to have reviewed its earlier order dated 17-11-2005. The matter actually involves the future of small children who were continuing the studies in the educational institution.
(3.) AS regards the scope of a review petition the Court can interfere into a judgment and order passed by it only when it is found from discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not available at the time when the order was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The Court would not be obliged to review any order or decree on the ground as taken by the revisionist in the present case. The simple ground which has been been taken by the petitioners and as submitted by them also for grant of the review is that they could not make the deposit as required under Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. because of the fact that the Counsel did not advice them for the same. This is no ground which can be said to be coming within the ambit of the grounds as enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is absolutely no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor there is any discovery of new matter or evidence which can impel the Court to reverse its decision given earlier. Therefore, since the aforesaid ground does not cover the scope of review as enumerated in the aforesaid order XLVII, the Court below has rejected the review petition. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned as to call for any interference against it in this review petition.;