JUDGMENT K.G. Balakrishnan, J. 1. Both these appeals arise from the judgment in A.S.No.19/86 passed in a final decree proceedings in a partition suit. 2. The dispute in this case centres round the allotment of one plot of land shown as 'A' in the plan prepared by the commissioner. A commissioner was deputed to prepare a plan of the property and for proper allocation of shares between various parties. The commissioner suggested two modes of allotment. The trial court by its judgment dated 12th July, 1983 allotted plot 'A' in Ext. Cl plan to the 19th respondent. The 19th respondent was also directed to pay Rs.547.50 to the 17th plaintiff, the present appellant, for equalisation of shares. Aggrieved by this the 17th plaintiff filed A.S.No.19/86. The learned Sub Judge by his order dated 31-10-1989 confirmed the order passed by the Munsiff with slight modification. The amount ordered to be paid by the 19th respondent to 17th plaintiff was enhanced to Rs.3500/-. This was on account of the fact that the 17th plaintiff raised objection that he was not getting legitimate share of the property having road frontage and that the 19th respondent was getting property in excess of his share. The 17th plaintiff later filed an application to review the judgment passed in A.S.19/86. The Sub Judge by his order dated 27-3-1990 reviewed his judgment dated 31-10-89 and allotted 'A' plot to the 17th plaintiff and 'C' plot was allotted to the 19th respondent. Aggrieved by this order the 19th respondent has filed the civil miscellaneous appeal. The second appeal is filed by the 19th plaintiff. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant in the civil miscellaneous appeal contended that the Sub Judge has seriously erred in reviewing his earlier order and it is a clear violation of O.47 Rule I of C.P.C. Under R.l(l)(c) of O.47 a decree or order could be reviewed only on the grounds specified under this Section. A decree or order could be reviewed on the ground of discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or it could not be produced by him at the time when the original decree or order was passed. A decree or order could also be reviewed on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. A decree or order could also be reviewed on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The 3rd ground for review is stated to be any other sufficient reason. This Court in Rajamony v. Mohammed ( 1978 KLT 417 ) pointed out that an application for review would lie on stated and specific grounds, viz. a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of a new and important matter which could not have been produced despite due diligence, at the original hearing, or for any other sufficient reason. This Court held that the last expressions, "any other sufficient reasons" have to be understood ejusdem generis with the words preceding. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Sub Judge has reviewed the matter on the ground that there was mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 4. In M/s. Northern India Caterers v. Governor of Delhi (1980 (2) Supreme Court 167) the Supreme Court considered the scope and ambit of O.47 R.1. The Court was of the view that if the view adopted by the court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what record states it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court also was of the view that the power under O.47 R.1 to review the earlier judgment is very narrow. The Supreme Court held that it is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and for a fresh decision of the case. The, normal principle is that the judgment pronounced by the court is final. Departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. For instance if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material, the statutory provision during the. original hearing the court will review its judgment. (See G.L Gupta v. D.N. Mehta (19713 SCC 189). The court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. (See O.N. Mohindroo v. D.J. Delhi ( 1971 SCC 5 ). original hearing the court will review its judgment. (See G.L Gupta v. D.N. Mehta (19713 SCC 189). The court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. (See O.N. Mohindroo v. D.J. Delhi ( 1971 SCC 5 ). In the Northern India Caterers' case His Lordship V.R. Krishna Iyer in his concurrent judgment observed that: "A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result" 5. In another case reported in Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib (1975 (1) Supreme Court Cases 674) Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer observed that: "A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different Counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import arc obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of. Counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step". 6. In the instant case the Sub Judge reviewed his earlier order apparently for the reason that there was error apparent on the face of the record. In the original order the Sub Judge considered the allotment of shares made by the Munsiff and found that the allotment was reasonable and correct and confirmed the judgment of the Munsiff: In the subsequent order dated 27th March, 1990 the Sub Judge held that the 19th respondent should be allotted plot 'C' instead of plot 'A'. The reasons for making this alteration are given in Para.9 and 10 of the impugned order. It is mentioned that the Court was under a mistake that no shop room could be constructed in plot 'C' and it was found that plot 'C' also could be used for construction of a building and therefore there was nothing wrong in aliening plot 'C' to the 19th respondent. It may be noticed that plot 'A' is slightly bigger than plot 'C'. It may be noticed that plot 'A' is slightly bigger than plot 'C'. The western side of plot 'A' is having a width of 4.40 metres whereas the width of 'C' plot on its western side abutting the road is 3.30 metres It is evident that this fact was noticed by the learned Sub Judge when he passed the original order and the Sub Judge had also chosen to enhance the owalty payable to the 17lh plaintiff from Rs.547.50 to Rs.3500/-. It is not known how the learned Sub Judge came to the conclusion as to how a building could be constructed in plot 'C'. Anyway it cannot be said to be a discovery of a new and important matter for evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner. 7. Another ground for allotting plot 'A' to the 17th plaintiff is that if plot 'A' is allotted to the 19th respondent he would begetting more than his legitimate share. This also does not appear to be a sufficient ground to review the original order since the very same matter was considered by the Judge in his original order and came to a specific conclusion. There was no mistake either apparent or latent in the original order passed by the Sub Judge. Under the above circumstances, I set aside the judgment passed by the ;court below reviewing its earlier judgment passed in the same proceedings. 8. S.A.No.752 of 1990 is originally filed against the judgment of the learned Sub Judge dated 31-10-1989. But later the Sub Judge reviewed his judgment on 27-3-90. . The review was made at the instance of the present appellant. The appellant later amended the cause title in the appeal as per order in C.M.P. 1809/90. Now the pending second appeal is against the judgment of the Sub Judge dated 27-3-90. Evidently the appellant has no grievance against that judgment. Moreover, that judgment is being now set aside by this Court in the connected C.M.A. Therefore, S.A.No.752 of 1990 is only to be dismissed. In the result, C.M.A.No.157 of 1990 is allowed and the order passed by the Sub Judge on 27-3-1990 in the review application is set aside and the original order dated 31-10-89 is allowed to stand. S.A.No.752 of 1990 is dismissed. Parties to suffer their costs. Dismissed.