JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, Member. - The question whether the review against the order passed by my learned predecessor in S.A. No. 246 of 1970-71 Jaunpur dated August 9, 1971 should be admitted or not open till today and has to be adjudicated upon. This review has been filed on May 2, 1975. The Board's order against which the review has been filed is dated August 9, 1971. Thus there is a gap of about 41/4 years. Accordingly, the applicant is called upon to show whether this belated review deserves to be admitted. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no time limit for filing the review as held in 1976 R.D. 53. He submitted that according to the procedure laid down in C.P.C. the review should be filed with in 30 days from the date of order and according to the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act it should be filed within 90 days. He stated that according to the Full Bench decision referred to above in review neither the provisions of C.P.C. nor the provisions of U.P. Tenancy Act will apply and therefore, the court has to see if any error apparent on the face of the record has been committed in the order sought to be reviewed. He further submitted that in view of Section 273 of the U.P. Tenancy Act the scope of review is wider than appeal. 3. The main point to be decided in this case is whether a belated review filed after a lapse of about more than 4 years is maintainable at all. I have gone through the ruling referred to by the learned counsel. This ruling says that the powers of review are enjoyed by the court in accordance with the settled principles of law that every court has inherent jurisdiction, apart from the statutory jurisdiction, to correct any error committed by itself. This power is based on the legal maxim that no party should suffer because of any fault of the court. It was argued before the learned Full Bench in that case that reviews are provided by Rule 339 (1) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. This power is based on the legal maxim that no party should suffer because of any fault of the court. It was argued before the learned Full Bench in that case that reviews are provided by Rule 339 (1) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. This rule desires the authority from Section 273 of the U.P. Tenancy Act which reads as follows:- "The Board on its own motion or on the application of the party to the case may review and may rescind, alter or confirm any decree or order made by itself, or by a single member." 4. However, the position is that Section 114 of the C.P.C. which provides for review has been expressly excluded and they do not apply to the suit and proceedings under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in accordance with the second Schedule of the U.P. Tenancy Act and once the application of Section 114 of the C.P.C. is ruled out Order LVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. will also not be considered as being applicable to the applications for review filed under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Thus, as has also been found by the Hon'ble High Court the Board enjoys reviewing powers which are not in any way binding or restricted by the provisions either of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act or the U.P. Tenancy Act or even the C.P.C. but it does not mean that the remedy review will remain open for an indefinite period of time. The C.P.C. provides that the review should be titled with a period of 30 days and the U.P. Tenancy Act provided that reviews should be filed within a period of 90 days. These provisions incorporated in those acts do point out that some reasonable restrictions of time should be placed on matters brought for review before the Board. I think these are salutary provisions and afford guidelines in this behalf. Against any decree or order made by the Board, review should be filed within a reasonable period of which should not normally exceed 90 days. In this case, the application did not choose to file the review application for as long as 4 years. I think these are salutary provisions and afford guidelines in this behalf. Against any decree or order made by the Board, review should be filed within a reasonable period of which should not normally exceed 90 days. In this case, the application did not choose to file the review application for as long as 4 years. If such application for review are entertained by the Board it will open itself to a spate of litigation which is not justified for after all the original order of the Board has been passed after due consideration and after full hearing to the parties. The scope of review is rather limited and is generally confined to observance of the legal maxim that no party should suffer because of the fault of the court. If an error has crept in due to the fault of the court, the parties should bring it to the notice of the court within a reasonable time. I am, therefore, of the view that this belated application for review does not deserve to be admitted. Accordingly the review application stands rejected.