Rameshwar Singh Malik, J. - (1.) APPLICANT seeks review of the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by this Court.
(2.) LEARNED senior counsel for the applicant, while referring to the order dated 21.2.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3953 of 2014 filed by the applicant, submits that the applicant sought and was granted permission to file the present review application. However, learned senior counsel for the applicant did not raise any fresh argument, so as to warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the review -applicant at considerable length on each and every aspect of the matter, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one has not been found to be a fit case warranting any interference at the hands of this Court in the instant review application. It is so said, because despite having failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 22.7.2013, learned senior counsel for the applicant wanted to re -argue the case, which is not the scope of power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No other sufficient reason has been pointed out for review of the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by this Court.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, when a pointed question was put to the learned senior counsel for the applicant as to what was the error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 22.7.2013 passed by this Court, so as to warrant interference in the instant review application, learned senior counsel for the applicant had no answer. Again, when asked as to why the applicant did not avail the remedy of intra -court appeal, which was available to him, by filing a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court against the order dated 22.7.2013, before approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he had no answer. Further, learned senior counsel for the applicant could not substantiate any of his arguments as to how the sub -clause (viii) of Clause 25 -A of the agreement in question was onerous and against the public policy. It is neither pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the applicant that he was misled by any misrepresentation at the hands of respondent -authorities, at the time of executing the agreement containing clause 25 -A.;