Satya Narayan And Another v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation Dist. Shrawasti And

3. By the final order dated 28.04.2025, under review, the Writ Petition filed challenging the orders dated 19.03.2025, 23.11.2023 and 25.05.1996 passed by the Consolidation Authorities i.e. the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, in terms of relevant provisions of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), was dismissed.

4. A perusal of final order dated 28.04.2025, under review, indicates that the same was passed after considering the prayer sought, facts pleaded as also the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner/review applicant as also the relevant law on the subject and interference by this court in writ jurisdiction if substantial justice has been done between the parties. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, under review, reads as under :- "Upon due consideration of the facts of the case and also the submissions advanced by the 2 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel, this Court finds no force in the instant petition. It is for the following reasons:- (i) The delay of about 31 years has not been explained properly, as required under the law, which ought to have been explained properly, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements. (see: Ramji Dass and others Vs. Mohan Singh reported in 1978 ARC 496; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123; Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Medar Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649; Brijesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351; Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More reported in (2019) 6 SCC 387 and Ajay Dabra Versus Pyare Lal and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92). (ii) Jiledar, father/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was well aware with the proceedings carried out by the CO, however, during his lifetime, he never approached the higher authorities under the Act of 1953 namely SOC and DDC. Thus also, this Court finds that the delay has not been explained properly for the reason that as to why the father of the petitioners failed to approach SOC within reasonable time. (iii) The basis of the claim of the petitioners i.e. the order dated 19.06.1984 passed by the Naib Tehsildar concerned in mutation proceedings is a nonest order as was passed after publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 and this fact has not been refuted by the petitioners either in memo of appeal or in memo of revision or in the instant petition. (iv) The document i.e. 'Will', basis of claim of the petitioners, has also not been proved before the competent court of jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners is completely a bogus one and is liable to be dismissed. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed."

5. The grounds for seeking review of final order dated 28.04.2025 taken in the present application are extracted hereinunder:- "[A] BECAUSE the Hon'ble Court has committed manifest apparent error in non considering the facts that the mutation proceeding was already pending prior to publication of notification under section-4 of the U.P. C.H. Act. [B] BECAUSE when any proceeding is being prior to publication of notification of the C.H. Act, the same shall be continue as per old proceeding. [C] BECAUSE the petitioners have properly explained the delay in the filing of appeal, but the same has not been consider. [D] BECAUSE the petitioners have not given any opportunity to prove the Will during the whole proceedings. [E] BECAUSE the aforesaid order passed in non presence of the father of the petitioners and there is no any notice or information has been served to the father of the petitioners, so he could not know about the orders, due to which the father of the petitioners did not appear before the court. [F] BECAUSE the father of the petitioners died in the year-2019. After the death of father 3 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 of the petitioners, when petitioners tried to get recorded their names in the revenue records, the entire records of the pendency were not found, then the petitioners went to obtained the entire records in the record room office, along with an advocate on

27.02.2023, then they came to know about the order dated 25.05.1996 passed by the opposite party No. 3. [G] BECAUSE while passing the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, the opposite party No. 1 has not considered the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioners on

06.02.2025, in which detailed explanation about the case was submitted before the court. [H] BECAUSE the name of maternal grand-mother of opposite party No. 4 is Late Chandrakala, wife of Mahadev Prasad, resident of Sarra and opposite party No. 4 has already claimed the property of Chandra Kala, claiming himself to be grand-son of deceased Chandra Kala and name of opposite party No. 4 is entered on khata No. 58, in Akar Patra-45 of revenue records in the year-1983."

6. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.25,.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:— (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. 4 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re- heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

7. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.

8. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, observed as under:-

9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result……… A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace."

10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very pivotal observations:— "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (supra) dismissed the 5 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.

14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), this Court reiterated the law and held that:— "15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions."

15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

9. In the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others ; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- 6 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 "As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius)."

10. Upon due consideration of the grounds taken in the instant review application as also the law related to dealing with the review petition(s), according to which the review is by no means an appeal in disguise and the scope of review is limited as also the final order dated 28.04.2025, under review, this Court finds no force in the present review application. It is for the reasons that while passing the final order dated 28.04.2025 this Court considered the relevant law on the issue as also the facts of the case pleaded and submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner/applicant as also that the present review application has not been filed by the counsel namely Sri Sheo Shankar Verma, Advocate, who argued the writ petition (See : Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiear and another, (1997) 9 SCC 736 which has relied on M. Poorna Chandran & Another Vs. State of Tamilnadu & Another (1996) 6 SCC 755).

11. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

12. No order as to costs. December 4, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

3. By the final order dated 28.04.2025, under review, the Writ Petition filed challenging the orders dated 19.03.2025, 23.11.2023 and 25.05.1996 passed by the Consolidation Authorities i.e. the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively, in terms of relevant provisions of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), was dismissed.

4. A perusal of final order dated 28.04.2025, under review, indicates that the same was passed after considering the prayer sought, facts pleaded as also the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner/review applicant as also the relevant law on the subject and interference by this court in writ jurisdiction if substantial justice has been done between the parties. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, under review, reads as under :- "Upon due consideration of the facts of the case and also the submissions advanced by the 2 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel, this Court finds no force in the instant petition. It is for the following reasons:- (i) The delay of about 31 years has not been explained properly, as required under the law, which ought to have been explained properly, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements. (see: Ramji Dass and others Vs. Mohan Singh reported in 1978 ARC 496; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123; Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Medar Academy and others reported in (2013) 12 SCC 649; Brijesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 351; Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More reported in (2019) 6 SCC 387 and Ajay Dabra Versus Pyare Lal and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92). (ii) Jiledar, father/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was well aware with the proceedings carried out by the CO, however, during his lifetime, he never approached the higher authorities under the Act of 1953 namely SOC and DDC. Thus also, this Court finds that the delay has not been explained properly for the reason that as to why the father of the petitioners failed to approach SOC within reasonable time. (iii) The basis of the claim of the petitioners i.e. the order dated 19.06.1984 passed by the Naib Tehsildar concerned in mutation proceedings is a nonest order as was passed after publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 and this fact has not been refuted by the petitioners either in memo of appeal or in memo of revision or in the instant petition. (iv) The document i.e. 'Will', basis of claim of the petitioners, has also not been proved before the competent court of jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners is completely a bogus one and is liable to be dismissed. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed."

5. The grounds for seeking review of final order dated 28.04.2025 taken in the present application are extracted hereinunder:- "[A] BECAUSE the Hon'ble Court has committed manifest apparent error in non considering the facts that the mutation proceeding was already pending prior to publication of notification under section-4 of the U.P. C.H. Act. [B] BECAUSE when any proceeding is being prior to publication of notification of the C.H. Act, the same shall be continue as per old proceeding. [C] BECAUSE the petitioners have properly explained the delay in the filing of appeal, but the same has not been consider. [D] BECAUSE the petitioners have not given any opportunity to prove the Will during the whole proceedings. [E] BECAUSE the aforesaid order passed in non presence of the father of the petitioners and there is no any notice or information has been served to the father of the petitioners, so he could not know about the orders, due to which the father of the petitioners did not appear before the court. [F] BECAUSE the father of the petitioners died in the year-2019. After the death of father 3 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 of the petitioners, when petitioners tried to get recorded their names in the revenue records, the entire records of the pendency were not found, then the petitioners went to obtained the entire records in the record room office, along with an advocate on

27.02.2023, then they came to know about the order dated 25.05.1996 passed by the opposite party No. 3. [G] BECAUSE while passing the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, the opposite party No. 1 has not considered the written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioners on

06.02.2025, in which detailed explanation about the case was submitted before the court. [H] BECAUSE the name of maternal grand-mother of opposite party No. 4 is Late Chandrakala, wife of Mahadev Prasad, resident of Sarra and opposite party No. 4 has already claimed the property of Chandra Kala, claiming himself to be grand-son of deceased Chandra Kala and name of opposite party No. 4 is entered on khata No. 58, in Akar Patra-45 of revenue records in the year-1983."

6. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.25,.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:— (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. 4 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re- heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

7. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.

8. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406, observed as under:-

9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result……… A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace."

10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very pivotal observations:— "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (supra) dismissed the 5 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, this Court restated the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.

14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited), this Court reiterated the law and held that:— "15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions."

15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

9. In the case of S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others ; reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- 6 CMRAD No. 195 of 2025 "As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius)."

10. Upon due consideration of the grounds taken in the instant review application as also the law related to dealing with the review petition(s), according to which the review is by no means an appeal in disguise and the scope of review is limited as also the final order dated 28.04.2025, under review, this Court finds no force in the present review application. It is for the reasons that while passing the final order dated 28.04.2025 this Court considered the relevant law on the issue as also the facts of the case pleaded and submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner/applicant as also that the present review application has not been filed by the counsel namely Sri Sheo Shankar Verma, Advocate, who argued the writ petition (See : Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiear and another, (1997) 9 SCC 736 which has relied on M. Poorna Chandran & Another Vs. State of Tamilnadu & Another (1996) 6 SCC 755).

11. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

12. No order as to costs. December 4, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench