RAJNI CHAUHAN Vs. SAROJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.

(2.) THIS revision challenges the order dated 17-10-2006 passed by the Court below dismissing the review petition of the revisionist.

(3.) AS regards the scope of a review petition the Court can interfere into a judgment and order passed by it only when it is found from discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not available at the time when the order was passed or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The Court would not be obliged to review any order or decree on the ground as taken by the revisionist in the present case. The simple ground which has been been taken by the petitioners and as submitted by them also for grant of the review is that they could not make the deposit as required under Order XV, Rule 5 C. P. C. because of the fact that the Counsel did not advice them for the same. This is no ground which can be said to be coming within the ambit of the grounds as enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is absolutely no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record nor there is any discovery of new matter or evidence which can impel the Court to reverse its decision given earlier. Therefore, since the aforesaid ground does not cover the scope of review as enumerated in the aforesaid order XLVII, the Court below has rejected the review petition.