SANTOSH KUMAR SOOD Vs. AMAR NATH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sec. 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to review and recall the orders dtd. 17/12/2021, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.55 of 2020, titled as: Santosh Kumar Sood vs. Amar Nath Sood through his legal representative and Another, whereby this Court dismissed the aforesaid revision petition after upholding the judgment dtd. 9/3/2020, passed by learned District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, in Execution Petition No.66/X/2018 under Order XXI Rules 11(2), 95 and 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

(3.) The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the grounds urged in revision petition. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the judgment cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held: