- (1.) HEERCHAND and others plaintiff petitioners have filed this revision petition against Hindu and others defendant petitioners against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi dated 4. 5. 1963 rejecting the review petition passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the Civil suit No. 50/1960.
(2.) THE only contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the Court committed an error of law in rejecting the review petition of the petitioners in a summary fashion without considering the various points raised by him in the application on merits. He pointed out special errors in the original judgment passed by the learned Court in a civil suit and not one of those errors was touched in rejecting this revision petition of the petitioner. THE counsel for the petitioner contended that revision against the order rejecting the review petition lies. THE reply of the counsel for the respondent was that no revision lies against the order rejecting the review petition. The question is whether revision lies against the order rejecting the review petition or not. The counsel for the petitioner cited two rulings R. R. D. 1957 page 1 and R. R. D. 1960 page 160. These rulings do not support the proposition of law contended by the counsel. They refer to something different and therefore they have no application. There is a volume of authority cited by Chitley in note 16 of 0. 47 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1963 Edition in which it is clearly laid down that ordinarily an order rjecting an application for review on merits or purely in a question of law or fact is not open to revision. But a revision lies against such an order if it is covered by any of the clauses of Section 115. In this case the Presiding Officer, who rejected the review did so on two grounds. Firstly that the review application was made very late and secondly that the judgment was complete and the proper course for them was to file an appeal. That means the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was disposing of the question of limitation and summarily decided the revision petition on merits by saying that the judgment was complete and there was not irregularity. He did not consider both these questions of law and fact in some detail and with reason. This judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sirohi is no judgment in the eye of law and thus improper and illegal and must be set aside. The revision petition of the petitioner is therefore accepted, the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Sirohi is quashed and the case is remanded to him for rehearing the review petition afresh on merits and to decide it in accordance with the law. .;