MOHINDER KAUR Vs. KUNDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Mohinder Kaur through her attorney has filed a civil suit for possession of the land in question. The said civil suit was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, dated 31.8.1987. An appeal was preferred and on 22.1.1991 the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, had dismissed the same. A second appeal had been preferred and had been listed as Regular Second Appeal No. 1050 of 1991. It came up hearing and the learned Single Judge of this Court on November 2, 1999 had dismissed the same.

(2.) The petitioner-applicant has preferred an application seeking review of the said order alleging that the documents filed by him have not been considered. Some of the other facts which are in the form of the challenge need not be mentioned. Notice of the petition has been issued and in the reply filed the respondent has controverted the said contention.

(3.) The position of law is well settled that review of the judgment would only be permissible if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. If a conscious decision has been arrived at, the Court would be slow to act and as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others, 1954 AIR(SC) 526 even the expression "any other sufficient reason" must mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. This position of law has been further explained in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Others v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, 1960 AIR(SC) 137 In the cited case it was held as under :-