AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner in R.P.No.182/2023 and R.P.No.183/2023.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that this Court while disposing of R.S.A.No.1210/2021 (DEC/INJ) connected with R.S.A.No.229/2022 (DEC/INJ) had not formulated necessary substantial question of law regarding title of the appellant. The written submission filed by the appellant was not taken into consideration and concurrent finding of fact regarding title of the appellant recorded by the Trial Court, as well as by the First Appellate Court, was reversed by this Court by allowing R.S.A.No.229/2022 without assigning valid reasons. On these grounds, he prays for reviewing the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2023.
The scope of review of the order is very limited. Only if there are errors apparent on the face of the record, this Court can exercise the jurisdiction for reviewing the judgment once passed on merits. The grounds urged by the learned counsel for revision petitioner cannot be considered as error on the face of the record but they constitute the grounds on merits of the judgment passed by this Court. Therefore, I am of opinion that the grounds urged by the learned counsel the revision petitioner is beyond the scope of the order XLVII of CPC and it amounts to reconsideration of the appeal afresh which is not permissible in law. Therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.