SHARMA, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this review petition are that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by a reasoned order dated March 11, 2008. In the review petition, it has been stated that certain facts escaped the notice of this Court and only on that ground this review petition has been preferred. It is stated that the petitioner has completed 17 years of service as Patwari and there was no complaint against his work. The petitioner given out that he has placed on record Govt, orders in order to show that Patwar Examination was exempted to similarly situated persons who has worked for long time. The petitioner was not given any chance to appear in the Patwar examination. The petitioner stated that similarly situated persons were absorbed on the post of Class IV but he was not absorbed. The case reported in Sadhna Lodh (2003) 3 SCC 524 is not applicable to his case but his case is covered by the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4) SCC 1.
(2.) THE respondents filed affidavit to controvert the submissions made in the review petition. In the affidavit it has been averred that the writ petition was decided by this Court after hearing the parties on 11.3.2008 by a reasoned order and there is no error apparent on the face of the record which requires review of the order passed by this Court. THE submissions made before this Court were considered while deciding the writ petition. THEre is no averment by way of affidavit that particular submissions were made and were not considered as such no case is made out for review. THE petitioner is neither fulfilling the requisite qualification of Patwari nor was appointed on the said post as such question of allowing him to work as patwari does not arise. His engagement was initially on daily wages and subsequently given fix emoluments. To acquire qualification of Patwari and to apply for the post lies on the petitioner therefore the question of relaxation does not arise. Lastly a prayer was made that the review petition is not maintainable. Mr. R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner made emphasis that his submissions as stated above were not considered in the judgment dated 11,3.2008 and prayed for allowing the review petition, recalling the order dated 11.3.2008 and granting the relief as prayed in the writ petition by placing reliance on Ramesh Ghand Tiwari vs. Board of Revenue and others (RLR 2005(2) 122 = RLW 2005(2) Raj. 1073 and State of Karanataka vs. Umadevi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Mr. S.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents argued the matter at length and made emphasis that there is no ground for reviewing the order passed by this Court placing reliance on the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another (2008) 8 SCC 612 and. Before proceeding further it is necessary to have a look at the power of review under the Civil Procedure Code. The power of a Civil Court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Section 114 CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under: "Order 47 Rule 1 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 not within his knowledge or could not 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 a 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. Thus it is clear that this court can review its order only if either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 are available.
(3.) IN Thungabhadra INdustries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1372), the Apex Court held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereof an erroneous decision can be corrected. In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others (1997 (8) SCC 715), the Apex Court held as under:- "Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." In Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik and others (2006 (4) SCC 78 = RLW 2006(3) SC 1877), the Apex Court made a reference Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and held as under:- "In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate.the ambit of interference expected of the Court since it merely states that it "may make such order thereon as it thinks fit". The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason." The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that 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 not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. ;