By Court 1. In an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing Annexure-3. 2. Annexure 3 is a review order passed by the Assistant Registrar purported to be under section 48(7) of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 1935 (hereinafter called the Act). The dispute related to the elections of Balia Sahuari Multipurpose Cooperative Society which were held on 30th December, 1977 and 10.2.78 for the election or the office bearers and members of the Society. The election was challenged by Mikharam Rai against Ram Janam Singh (petitioner) and the decision was given by the Assistant Registrar vide Annexure-2 dated 29.8.78 by that annexure the Asstt. Register upheld the claim of Ramjanam Singh as Secretary of the aforesaid society. In other words he did not accept the election valid of the elected Mukhram Rai as Secretary of the Co-operative Society. Thereafter Mukhram Rai filed a review petition before the Asstt. Registrar who passed an order which is contained in Annexure-3 By annexure-3 the Asst. Registrar set aside the order contained in Annexure-2 and upheld the claim of validity of the election held on 10.2.78 by which Mukhram Rai was selected as Secretary of the aforesaid Society. 3. On these facts the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Asstt. Registrar erred in law in reviewing the order contained in Annexure-2. 4. In this connection reference was made to section 48(7) of the Act, which runs as follows : "48(7)-The Registrar, in the case of disputes under this section, shall have the power of review vested in a Civil Court under section 114 and under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and shall also have the inherent jurisdiction specified in section 151 of the said Code". 5. On a perusal of section 48(7) of the Act, it is clear that while reviewing the order the reviewing authority shall exercise the powers as laid down in Order XLVII, rule 1 C.P.C. It is conceded by Shri Kamalapati Singh that there is no specification of the ground on which the order of review has been passed. 5. On a perusal of section 48(7) of the Act, it is clear that while reviewing the order the reviewing authority shall exercise the powers as laid down in Order XLVII, rule 1 C.P.C. It is conceded by Shri Kamalapati Singh that there is no specification of the ground on which the order of review has been passed. The reviewing court can review its order only in accordance with the Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C. Order XLVII rule 1 provides that the reviewing authority shall review his earlier order if he is satisfied that the aggrieved party has discovered new and important matter of evidence which was not within his knowledge at the time when the decree was passed. The reviewing authority can also review the order on account of mistake apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason. In the present case none of the grounds are mentioned in order contained in Annexure-3. Hence we quash the order contained in Annexure-3. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and Annexure-3 is hereby quashed, parties, will bear their own costs. Application allowed.