JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This application in revision is directed against an order of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack a allowing an application for review of the judgment passed by his predecessor-in-office in Title Suit No. 14 of 1959 on the file at his Court. The suit was one for partition of certain family properties filed by Pareswar and Narendrakishore who are the sons of one Gopinath Khuntia. It is unnecessary in the present proceeding to make a detailed reference to the family pedigree which has been set out in the plaint and written statement. It is sufficient to say that Gopinath Khuntia had a brother named Sudarsan who was issueless. According to the Plaintiffs. Sudarsan had adopted their brother Amaresh and that besides this adopted son Sudarsan had also a foster son named Birendra whom he was treating like a son. Birendra is dead. Defendant No. 18 is Birendra?s widow and Defendant No. 17 is alleged to be Birendra?s adopted son. Amaresh the alleged adopted son of Sudarsan is Defendant No. 1. Some of the other Defendants impleaded in the suit represent other branches of the family and the rest are (sic). 2. After setting forth their claim to the various plaint schedule properties, the Plaintiffs claimed for themselves a one sixth interest in Schedule ?A? lands, a one-twelfth interest in Schedule ?B? lands, a one-fourth interest in Schedule ?C? lands, a six annas share in Schedule ?D? and an eight annas interest in Schedule E properties, and prayed for partition of the same by metes and bounds. Despite the allegation made in the plaint that Defendant No. 1 is the only adopted son of Sudarsan and that Birendra was only the letter?s foster son, the Plaintiffs conceded in paragraph 16(b) of the plaint that Defendants 1, 17 and 18 together have got a one-sixth interest in Schedule ?A?, a one twelfth interest in Schedule ?B?, a one-fourth in Schedule ?C?, a six annas share in Schedule ?D? and an eight annas share in Schedule ?E? properties, that is, the Plaintiffs conceded that Defendants 1, 17 and 18 have got a share in the suit properties equal to the shares claimed by them (Plaintiffs). The suit was valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 4,607/- and a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 150/- had been paid thereon. 3. properties, that is, the Plaintiffs conceded that Defendants 1, 17 and 18 have got a share in the suit properties equal to the shares claimed by them (Plaintiffs). The suit was valued for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 4,607/- and a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 150/- had been paid thereon. 3. Defendants 17 and 18 who are the main contesting Defendants in the suit contended inter alia that Amaresh was never adopted by Sudarsan but that the latter adopted Birendra, that there was a previous partition between Sudarsan and Gopinath and consequently the present suit for partition is not maintainable; and that the suit had not been properly valued and proper Court-fee had not been paid thereon. Besides the above, several other contentions were also raised by them which have been fully dealt with in the judgment which formed the subject matter of review. 4. Defendant No.,1 Amaresh filed a written statement generally supporting the allegations made in the plaint. While asserting that he was the only adopted son of Sudarsan, he stated that Birendra was the latter?s foster son and was treated by him as his son and what is remarkable is that he specifically admitted the shares specified in para 14 of the plaint wherein it was stated that Sudarsan along with Defendants 1, 17 and 18 was entitled to a one-sixth interest in Schedule ?A?, a one-twelfth interest in Schedule ?13?, a one-fourth interest in Schedule ?C?, a six annas share in Schedule ?D? and an eight annas share in Schedule ?E? properties. It is not necessary for the purpose of this case to refer to the written statement filed by some of the other Defendants in the suit. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit framed as many as 15 issues and inter alia held after an elaborate discussion of the evidence on record that Defendant No. 1 Amaresh was adopted by Sudarsan, that Sudarsan never adopted Birendra and that consequently Defendants 17 and 18 cannot legally claim, any right to any share of the ?plaint schedule properties No, specific issue was framed regarding valuation of the suit properties. He disbelieved the case set up by Defendants 17 and 18 that there was a previous partition. He disbelieved the case set up by Defendants 17 and 18 that there was a previous partition. After a consideration of the evidence, on record, he passed a preliminary decree for partition allotting to the Plaintiffs the shares claimed by them in the plaint - schedule, properties. In the operative portion of the order he also specified inter alia that shares to which the other Defendants are entitled and what is worthy of note is that he allotted to Defendants 1, 17 and 18 a share equal to that of the Plaintiffs. 6. Defendants 17 and 18 there after filed an application for review of the judgment mainly on the ground that the trial Court failed to frame an issue on the question of valuation of the suit and that the Court committed an error in holding that Defendants 17 and 18 are not entitled to any share in the suit properties when the Plaintiffs themselves had conceded that they have a share and his has not been objected to by Defendant No. 1. The successor-in-office of the trial Judge who heard this review application considered that these are valid grounds which show that his predecessor had committed certain errors which are apparent on the face of the record and allowed the application for review. 7. For the purpose of deciding the scope of jurisdiction of the Court in matters of review, it is necessary to refer to Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC material portion of which runs thus: 1. Application for review judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, hut from which no appeal has be n preferred. x x x and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due: diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed -or order made, or on account of some mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed-or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. xxx The present review is not sought on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence. xxx The present review is not sought on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence. The ground upon which the application is based is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record so far as the son-ship of Birendra is concerned. Non-framing of the issue regarding valuation is sought to be brought within the clause ?any other sufficient reason?. It is well-established that ?sufficient reason? in the present context would mean any reason similar to or (sic) with reasons covered by all or any of the three clauses mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. Non-framing of an issue regarding valuation of the suit does not in my opinion fall in this category. After all the Court which tried the suit is the Court of Subordinate Judge which has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction. It cannot, then fort be said that there was an inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. Although the framing of issues is primarily a function of the Court yet it was open to any of the parties to agitate immediately thereafter that a certain issue which he considered to be material had not been framed and that it should be framed. Obviously Defendants 17 and 18 had not made any grievance of the fact that no issue regarding valuation was framed. It was therefore not open to them in the circumstances stated above to claim a review of the judgment on the ground that a material issue regarding valuation had not been framed in the suit. 8. The trial Court considered the contentions put forward in the suit by the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 on one side claiming that Sudarsan had adopted Defendant No. 1 and had never adopted Birendra and the rival claims put forward by Defendants 17 and 18 that Birendra alone was adopted by Sudarsan and the latter had never adopted Defendant No. 1. There was a full and detailed discussion of the evidence on record and after such discussion the Court rejected the claim of Defendants 17 and 18 and accepted the Defendant No. 1?s case on this point. A decision may be right or wrong and if it is wrong, that is capable of being corrected in appeal. There was a full and detailed discussion of the evidence on record and after such discussion the Court rejected the claim of Defendants 17 and 18 and accepted the Defendant No. 1?s case on this point. A decision may be right or wrong and if it is wrong, that is capable of being corrected in appeal. 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. Dealing with this aspect of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge who allowed the review application stated: The Plaintiffs in para 1 of the plaint have stated that they and Defendants belong to Khetriya caste. The Defendants 17 and 18, the present Petitioners averred in their written statement that the parties belong to Khandayat caste but they are not Khetriya as alleged in the plaint. But the Court while deciding issue Nos. 12 and 13 came to the finding that Khandayats are Khetriyas but held that Birendra, father of Defendant 17 and husband of ?D? 18 is a Sudra. That being so, the learned Court held that there cannot have been an adoption made by Sudra in as much as an adoption of Sudra by a Khetriya is not valid in the eye of law. To me it appears that the learned Court has not taken into consideration the pleadings of both sides on the issues while deciding the factor as aforesaid. Taking together the plaint and written statement filed by the parties, it cannot be concluded that Birendra, the father of ?D? 17 and husband of ?D? 18 is a ?Sudra? and not a Khandayat. 9. Taking together the plaint and written statement filed by the parties, it cannot be concluded that Birendra, the father of ?D? 17 and husband of ?D? 18 is a ?Sudra? and not a Khandayat. 9. If the finding on the question of adoption recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit rested solely in the ground mentioned above, there might have been some force in the application for review, but I find, on a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, that he discussed at great length about the actual giving and taking ceremony and the oral evidence adduced, by both the parties and came to the conclusion that it is only Amaresh who was adopted by Sudarsan and that the latter had never adopted Birendra. The observation regarding validity of the adoption on the ground of caste was only incidental. It is therefore not open to Defendants 17 & 18 to make any grievance on this score. Having stated in the body of the judgment that Defendants 17 and 18 are not legally entitled to any share in the family properties, one would have expected the trial Judge to dismiss their claim for any share therein. But in the operative portion of the judgment Defendants 17 and 18 have been allotted along with Defendant No. 1 shares in the family properties equal to the shares allotted to the Plaintiffs. In fact, this part of the order Prima facie appeared to me to be an apparent error on the face of the record. But on close scrutiny I find that Defendants 17 and 18 had been given a share along with Defendant No. 1 solely on the ground that both the Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 1 had conceded such shares to Defendants 17 and 18. Having regard therefore to the finding recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge in the body of the judgment, Defendants 17 and 18 should think themselves that in the operative portion of the judgment a share in the family properties was allotted to them. It is no doubt true that if the finding had been that Birendra alone was adopted by Sudarsan and that the latter had never adopted Defendant No. 1 Amaresh, the share now allotted to Sudarsan?s branch would have been enjoyed by Defendants 17 and 18 to the entire exclusion of Defendant No. 1. It is no doubt true that if the finding had been that Birendra alone was adopted by Sudarsan and that the latter had never adopted Defendant No. 1 Amaresh, the share now allotted to Sudarsan?s branch would have been enjoyed by Defendants 17 and 18 to the entire exclusion of Defendant No. 1. Such a result would follow only on the finding that the adoption of Defendant No. 1 by Sudarsan is not true. The finding that Sudarsan adopted his brother?s son Amaresh does net depend upon the question whether the parties are Kshatriyas or Khandayats or Sudras and consequently, that finding cannot be disturbed on a review of the judgment. 10. In the circumstances stated above, the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in allowing the application for review, I would accordingly allow this application, set aside the order dated 6-5-1969 passed by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack allowing the application for review and restore the judgment passed by his predecessor-in-office in the suit. The contesting opposite parties shall pay the costs of this petition to the Petitioners.