JUDGMENT Bennett and Madeley, JJ. - This is an application for review of the judgment and decree of this Bench dated the 5th April, 1944. The judgment was passed in a first civil appeal. The review application was presented by Mr. M.L. Saxena who has also signed a certificate that the grounds given in it are good grounds for the admission of the application. 2. The applicants were the Appellants in the appeal referred to Mr. Saxena did not appear in the appeal, nor has he appeared to support the review application. The applicants are represented by Mr. P.N. Chaudhry. 3. Mr. Chaudhri informed us at the outset that he found himself in some difficulty having regard to the ground set out in the application. There are eleven grounds, and mast of them merely question the correctness of the decisions arrived at by this Bench in the appeal. There is no suggestion in the application that any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record was committed by this Court, nor is there any attempt to show how the application lies under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It is indeed urged in some grounds that certain factors in the case were not taken into consideration. With regard to this we need only say that the appeal was argued before ns at some length by very senior Counsel and all arguments advanced received due consideration. 5. Mr. Chaudhry conceded that having regard to the general principles enunciated by this and other Courts as to the scope of a review application he could not contend that the grounds set out in the application are relevant. He submitted for our consideration two cases which he said were the only cases he had been able to find in which a review application not clearly within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 was granted. 6. In a case decided by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court in Sulleman Hussein v. The New Oriental Bank Corporation, Ltd., (1890) 15 Bom. 267 the point sought to be raised in review had not been raised or argued by either party, but was first taken by the Court itself in giving its opinion upon the case referred to it. 267 the point sought to be raised in review had not been raised or argued by either party, but was first taken by the Court itself in giving its opinion upon the case referred to it. It was observed that the question arising was not a question merely between the two parties, but was one of great general commercial importance and on this very special ground review was granted. 7. The other case was a case of the Madras High Court, N.K. Govindan Nayar Vs. Kanhirathotikayil Ithaletty, AIR 1926 Mad 764 , also a single Judge case. The learned Judge referred to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Chhajju Rant v. Nekia (1922) 49 I.A. 144 on the question of the scope of applications under Order 47 Rule 1, and held that a Judge should not review his judgment merely because a party has found fresh rulings. He granted the application, however, because the question was not merely a question of right between the two parties, but a matter of court-fees of general importance. 8. Mr. Chaudhry has not attempted to show how these decisions are relevant to the present application. No such considerations as influenced the learned Judges in those cases arise in the case under consideration. The facts of the present case were peculiar and so far as we know without precedent: there may never be another case of similar nature. The questions arising cannot therefore be described as of general importance. Not that we should be disposed, even if they were, to hold that this fact alone entitles a party to the re-hearing of an appeal. 9. The views of this Court on review applications have been expressed in a number of cases recently, mostly unreported, and several applications of the present nature have been severely criticised. 10. A Bench of this Court observed in Liaqat Husain v. Mohammad Razi 1944 O.A. 81 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 81 : O.W.N. 76: "In order that mistake or error may constitute a ground under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC for review it must be one apparent on the face of the record and not one which may require extraneous matters to prove the underlying fallacy. Such an error may be one of law, but in order that it may be a valid ground the law must have been indisputable at the date of the decision which is characterised as erroneous. A view of law taken by a Judge on a debatable point and subsequently found by an authoritative pronouncement to be incorrect is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record so as to entitle the aggrieved party to apply under Order 47 Rule 1". 11. The Bench then proceeded to refer to the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Chhajju Ram v. Neki (1922) 49 I.A. 144 and the construction put by their Lordships on the phrase "any other sufficient reason" as meaning a reason sufficient on ground at least analogous to those specified immediately previously. 12. Thus there can be no doubt that an application of the nature under consideration is wholly unjustified and we have no doubt that any Advocate of experience would realise this, just as Mr. Chaudhry evidently did. Only two views are, we think, possible with regard to the certificate given by Mr. Saxena. 13. In view of the number of applications of this kind which have been presented in this Court of recent years, we consider it necessary that this case should be reported. We trust that Mr. Saxena and other Advocates.concerned in such applications will exercise greater care in future before advising their clients that a review application lies on such grounds: as have been included in the present application. 14. The application is dismissed.