Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The review application has been taken out against the judgment and order dated 26th August 2016 passed in CO 3196 of 2016 on the premise that the area in occupation of the petitioner, as reflected in the said order, is much less than the same and, therefore, the quantum of occupational charges determined by the court of appeal below and affirmed by this Court should be reviewed.
(2.) Before proceeding to deal with the points urged in the review application, this Court feels that it would be necessary to remind itself the scope under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For better understanding the provision is quoted herein below: "1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was within his knowledge or could be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. [Explanation.- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
(3.) On meaningful reading of the aforesaid provision a person aggrieved by an order may apply for review on three eventualities; firstly, upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was within the knowledge and could be produced at the time when the order was passed; secondly, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and thirdly, for any other sufficient reasons.;