JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a review application under Order 47, Rule I, CPC against the order dated July 29, 1977, passed by Sri M.P. Pandey, Member, Board of Revenue since retired, dismissing the second appeal No. 91 of 1971-72/Allahabad. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. 3. Mukhtar Ahmad had filed a suit under Sec. 269, UPZA and LR Act, against Mohiuddin is respect of plot No. 54/1 measuring 10 biswas situate in village Phatupur Kachhar, pargana Nawabganj, Mohiuddin contested the suit claiming that he was in possession from before the abolition of zamindari and had become Sirdar. The suit was decreed on September 27, 1965. The defendant went up in appeal and the suit was remanded, against it was decreed on January 15, 1968. The defendant again went up in appeal and again the suit was remanded. It has again been decreed. The defendant filed an appeal and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal. Thus three times the suit had been decreed. Thereafter both the first appeals have been dismissed. 4. The grounds taken in this review petition are that PA 10 was introduce in February 1958 and the entries of 1361, 1362 and 1363 Faslis cannot be discarded and the learned Hon'ble Member has overlooked the rulings reported in 1977 RD. The second ground is that the suit was not within limitation and 1364F. is the intervening period and the applicant ought to have been held in possession of the land in suit in 1364F. also. 5. Order 47, Rule 1 CPC reads as follows :- "1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. also. 5. Order 47, Rule 1 CPC reads as follows :- "1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a court of small Causes, 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 cold 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 or apply for 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. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review or judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review. (b) No such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matte or evidence which the applicant alleges as not within his knowledge, or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed or made, without strict proof of such allegation." It is clear that a review application cannot lie on the ground of an erroneous view of law taken in the judgment nor can a review application lie for re-appraisal of evidence as has been held in Ram Bharose v. Smt. Roop Rani 1975 RD 327. It is indeed true that in Rudradeo v. Ramdhari alias Ram Adhar 1977 RD 131 the learned Member G.S. Sial took the view that rules requiring the noting of issuance of PA 10 in the revenue records came into force from February 1958 and, therefore, in the absence of rule about noting the factum in the issuance of PA 10 of entries for these years could not be discarded. But the learned Member MP Pandey has taken a different view which is as follows :- "The Kabiz entries made in the remarks column of Khasra 1361, 1362 and 1363 Faslis have not been supported with issue of PA 10 extracts. Paragraphs A-80 and A-81 of the Land Records Manual as it stood in 1361 F., equivalent to 1353-54 require issue of P.A. 10 to the tenant on whose field somebody ha encroached. This has not been proved." Thus the fact that the learned Member G.S. Sial had taken a different view, will not be a ground for review nor is this court required to express an opinion in review petition whether the view of learned Member G.S. Sial or learned Member M.P. Pandey, is more correct. 6. As regards the contention that the possession of the petitioner should be presumed even in 1364 F when he was not recorded in the Khasra, I find my self in agreement with the view taken by the learned Member, M.P. Pandey to the effect that the presumption of this nature can be taken in favour of the regular tenure-holder and not in favour of a trespasser. 7. I find no force in this review petition and hereby dismiss it.