( 2025:HHC:10205 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No. 9 of 2025 Decided on : 10 th April, 2025 Lekh Raj …Petitioner Versus Thakur Radha Krishan (An Idol) & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Virender Singh, Judge (oral). By way of the present application, filed, under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a prayer to review the judgment dated 27.12.2024, passed by this Court in RSA No. 526 of 2002, titled as Thakur Radha Krishan versus Karam Singh (deceased) through LRs & Others. 2. The review of the judgment dated 27.12.2024, has been sought on the ground that the question of non- 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 ( 2025:HHC:10205 ) maintainability of suit, on behalf of the plaintiff, and findings of the res judicata, in view of the specific provision of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estate and Land Reforms Act, 1953, escaped the attention of this Court. Non-consideration of the decision of this Court in Rolia versus Roop Lal, (1992) 1 Shim. LC 132, has been made the ground for reviewing the judgment. 3. In addition to this, according to the petitioner, the period of limitation for assailing the order under the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1935, has not been considered 4. All these grounds are stated to be falling within the terms ‘sufficient reasons’, as ordered by the legislature in its wisdom, under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket in India & Another versus Netaji Cricket Club & Others, (2005) 4 Supreme Court Case 741. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced as under:- 3 ( 2025:HHC:10205 ) 89. Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit". 6. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition. 7. Heard. 8. With due respect to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in BCCI’s case (supra), the same, in no way, helps the case of the petitioner, as, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner are duly covered by the findings, recorded by this Court, in paragraphs 36, 47, 48 and 55 of the judgment under review. 4 ( 2025:HHC:10205 ) 9. In view of the above discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, no ground for review of the judgment dated 27.12.2024, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( Virender Singh ) Judge April 10, 2025(ps)