MADAN SINGH Vs. SHANTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS have filed the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10-11-2003 passed in Second Appeal No. 514/2003 by the Single Judge of this Court whereby the appellant/defendants appeal was dismissed.

(2.) THE submission of the applicants is that the non-applicants had based their claim on the basis of the agreement to sale executed by the predecessor in title of the applicants. That the non-applicant plaintiffs were in possession of the agreement of sale and their possession can not only be adverse to the true owner as held in case of Achal Reddi v. Ramkrishna Reddiar, AIR 1990 SC Page 553. That the Court while deciding the second appeal has wrongly held that the applicant plaintiff has acquired the title on the basis of the possession and this finding is wrong as in fact the non-applicant had not got title to the said land on the basis of the adverse possession.

(3.) WITHOUT going into the merits of the arguments of the applicant/defendant it is suffice to observe that the power under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC arc exercised only to correct the mistakes which arc apparent on the face of record. The alleged mistake depends upon the process of reasoning of the applicant, such mistakes are not within the jurisdiction of the review and they are not corrected under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC. It is held in the case of State of M. P. and Anr. v. S. S. Bhadauria, 2000 (4) M. P. H. T. 263 (DB) = 2001 (1) MPLJ 72 that the scope of the review jurisdiction is to correct the errors which is apparent on the face of the record and an error which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning and hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its powers of review.