Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133341 Court No. - 37 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 407 of 2024 Applicant :- Ram Pyarey And Another Opposite Party :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Kumar Pandey,Shabeena Begum Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. This Matter is listed peremptorily. Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. Nill of 2024. 1. The instant application has been filed to condone the delay in filing the review application. 2. Explanation given for delay in filing the review application is satisfactory. 3. Delay in filing the review application is condoned. Order on Civil Misc. Review Application No. 407 of 2024. 1. The instant application has been filed against the final judgment passed by this Court dated 03.07.2024 in the writ petition arising out of proceeding under Section 9(A)2 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The writ petition was heard by this Court in pursuance of learned counsel for the parties and the judgment was reserved on 23.05.2024. 2. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel and Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for petitioners have argued the matter and from the side of contesting respondent Sri Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel has argued the matter. The judgment was delivered on 03.07.2024 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners recording the reasons in support of the judgment. 3. The instant review application has been filed by the counsel who has not argued the writ petition, as such review application can not be entertained. 4. So far as scope of review application is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in JT 1997 (8) SC 480, Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others has held as under in Paragraph Nos.7, 8 & 9:- "7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174] (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined: "What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error." 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 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". 5. The Judgment of Parsion Devi (supra) has been followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment reported in JT 2002 (10) SC 197 (State of Haryana & Others Vs. Mohinder Singh & Others). 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and ratio of law laid down in Parsion Devi (supra), no ground is made out to review / modify the judgment dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court on merit after hearing the counsel for the parties. 7. Review application is misconceived and rejected accordingly. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Neetu Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad