JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member. - This review petition is directed against the order dated 12-7-1990 passed by the court is revision No. 11 of 1988-89/ Faizabad. The grounds for this review petition are that the Additional Commissioner stayed the proceedings on 12th day from the auction. The auction purchaser had the right to make the deposit till the last moment of 15th day. After the stay order making an acceptance of deposit of balance of 75% would have amounted to contempt of court and hence compliance of Rules 84 and 85 of Order XXI was impossible. The second ground is that the rulings relied upon by this court are not applicable. Another ground is that it was not Majida O.P. No. 2 who had moved the application on 8-7-1987 before the trial court with the prayer to reauction as she was not prepared to purchase the land jointly with O.P No. 1 Smt. Jubeda. The application was actually moved by Smt. Jubeda alleging to be not prepared to be joint purchaser with O.P. No. 2. The grounds inter alia, taken are that Sri A.K. Pandey was not the counsel for any party in revision nor was he engaged by the opposite party that the auction took place on 14-2-1983 and on 20-2-1983 the entire proceedings were stayed by the Commissioner the Board of revenue decided the reference on 17-9-1985 and the file was in the trial court on 22-6-1987. Till then, there was no default on the part of the applicant. Order XXI Rule 85 CPC is not applicable to the auction sale of share in the proceedings under Section 176 of the Act. The total land is less than 3-1-18 acres. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ashfaq Ahmad argued the case himself. Sri. I.B. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner justified the grounds taken in the memo of the petition reiterating that the Order XXI Rule 85 CPC is not applicable to this case. Sri Ashfaq Ahmad has contended that under Rule 163 of the UPZA & LR Rules, the court is required to follow the procedure relating to sale of immovable property in execution of the decree prescribed under Order XXI First Schedule of CPC. He has further argued that only rule with regard to sale is rule 285-gha and 285-N of the UPZA & LR Rules. 3. He has further argued that only rule with regard to sale is rule 285-gha and 285-N of the UPZA & LR Rules. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. I have recorded in my judgment dated 12-7-1990 that Smt. Majida had moved an application before the trial court on 8-7-1987 with the prayer to reauction the land. It transpires from the record that it was Smt. Jubeda who had actually moved the application. This is nothing but a typing mistake which needs be corrected. As regards the appearance of Sri A.K. Pande the contention that he was not engaged by any party is not sustainable. Sri Pandey has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of Smt. Jubeda w/o Sri Mukhtar. The vakalatnama is on the record. 4. As regards the other grounds, I am of the view that no review is sustainable because an error of law is not sufficient reason for granting it. It will tantamount to re-writing the judgment if the grounds for review are taken under consideration. 5. In the result, this review petition is partly allowed. On page 1 Line No. 20 of para 2 of the judgment dated 12-7-1990, Smt. Jubeda will be written in place of Smt. Majida.