Dr. R. R. Misra, J - (1.) THIS application for review has been made by the opposite parties to recall my earlier judgment dated 17th February 1987 under which I had allowed the revision.
(2.) A revision was filed in this Court against an order passed by the trial court on an application moved by the defendant with the object of delaying the progress of the case. This application was rejected. However, a revision against the same was admitted by this Court and further proceedings in the trial court were stayed. When the revision came up for final hearing before me on 17th February 1987, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-opposite parties stated that he has no objection if the civil revision is allowed. Obviously further progress of the case in the trial court was held up because of the stay order granted by this Court. It appears that having regard to this object in view and on the facts of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties had made that concession. In view of the same the revision was allowed and the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge was set aside and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The plaintiff-opposite parties have now moved the present review application for recalling the said order dated 17th February 1987 on the ground that the revision as filed by the defendant-applicant in this Court was itself not maintainable and in this view of the matter the said order is liable to be recalled. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties has also in support of his submission relied upon the case of Gurbachan Singh v. Ilnd Addl. District Judge, Bulandshahr, 1979 ALJ 1097. In this case it has been held that if a court has omitted to decide an important matter in an appeal the court has power to review its own order. I am afraid, on the facts of the present case this authority is of no assistance to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties inasmuch as in the present case there has been no such omission. On the other hand, it appears to me that the present application for review has been moved only on a second thought. It has been held in the case of Soosai Anthoney D' Costa Nicholas D' Costa v. Francis Roche Anthoney Kurush Rocha, AIR 1962 Madras 304 that a review cannot be granted on the mere ground that the particular counsel who appeared for a party failed to raise a particular point inspite of instructions. Further, while expounding the scope of Order 47 Rule 1, the Supreme Court of India has in the case of M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167 held that the power to review can be exercised only in a case of glaring omission or patent mistake and not for rehearing of case. In the present case, no such ground has been taken in the review petition that while passing my order dated 17th February 1987 there has been any omission on the part of the Court. On the other hand, the point sought to be pressed in review was never raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite parties before me at the time of final hearing of the revision itself. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the plaintiff-opposite parties have failed to make out any case for the grant of this review application and the same is hereby rejected with costs. Application rejected.;