J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) BY this application the applicants-original petitioners nos. 2 to 5 have sought review of the judgment and order passed by this court in Special Civil Application No 275 or 1983 rendered on 10. 10. 1994 by virtue or which the said petition came to be rejected ( 2 ) THE main thrust of the present application for review is that there is apparent mistake on the record of the case which would warrant review In that petition the challenge was against the order passed in appeal by the appellate authority under the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 passed on 1. 1. 1983 in appeal no 45-10/83 In that appeal the challenge was against the order passed by the Debt Settlement Officer Surendranagar on 29. 9 Thus the appeal was under section 13 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 (the said Act for short) ( 3 ) DURING the course of the submissions it was also pointed out that the present applicants are the purchasers of the disputed property from opponent no. 2 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19. 11. 1964 and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the disputed property The predecessor-in-title of petitioners viz. opponent no 2 was granted occupancy certificate on 4. 8 pursuant to an order passed by the competent authority on 7. 12. 1954 under the provisions of section 12 of the said Act in respect of two agricultural properties admeasuring 8 acres 28 gunthas and 2 acres 15 gunthas. ( 4 ) THE Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors Relief Act 1954 came into force on 5. 8. 1954 under which original opponent no. 1 deceased P. P. Gadhvi applied for relief on 29. 10. 1954 before the Debtors Relief- Board under the Act. The application of the deceased Gadhvi was allowed on 23. 7 whereby a direction was given to hand over possession of the land in dispute to the predecessor of opponent no. 1 by opponent no. 2 in respect of three agricultural properties ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY opponent no 2 filed application being no 2 of 1956 to the Debtors Relief Board for review or modification of the order dated 23. 7 Partially the said review application was allowed in respect of two disputed parcels of land by an order dated 22. 8. 2 in respect of three agricultural properties ( 5 ) SUBSEQUENTLY opponent no 2 filed application being no 2 of 1956 to the Debtors Relief Board for review or modification of the order dated 23. 7 Partially the said review application was allowed in respect of two disputed parcels of land by an order dated 22. 8. 1956 It is the contention of the applicants that since then opponent no 2 had remained in occupation and enjoyment of the Said properties Thus they continued to remain in possession The present applicants purchased by a registered sale deed the suit agricultural properties from opponent no. 2 Dave and Upadhyaya and company on 19. 11. 1964 in respect of 11 acres 3 gunthas. It is the contention of the applicants that by virtue of the said sale deed they have been in enjoyment and occupation of the disputed agricultural properties. It is also contended that opponent no. 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 700/- by way of consideration for relinquishing his right of pre-emption under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 ( 6 ) THE Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 came into force on 15. 8. 1976 Opponent no. 1 applied for relief from mortgage deed to the Debt Settlement Officer on 29. 9. 1981 which was granted only in respect of one disputed land bearing s no 465 admeasuring 2 acres-26 gunthas Being aggrieved by the said order the matter was carried in appeal by opponent no. 1 It was remanded by the appellate authority and it was decided afresh Appeal no 547/81 came to be allowed by virtue of which deceased P P Gadhvi came to be discharged from the mortgage deed and the relief was granted Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the appellate authority Special civil application no 275 of 1983 was filed before this court which came to be heard on 10. 10. 1994 The present applicants who a e original petitioners nos. 10. 1994 The present applicants who a e original petitioners nos. 2 to 5 have preferred this application for review inter alia contending that there is an apparent error on the record and also there are sufficient grounds for review ( 7 ) AFTER having heard the learned advocates appearing for the pa ties and having examined the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the present case and the analogous principles of Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to an application for review and the latest relevant case law relied on this court finds that there is a fit and appropriate case for exercise of powers of review in the larger interest of justice This court has no hesitation in finding that prima facie a jurisdictional error seems to have been committed by the appellate authority in the appellate judgment which was directly in challenge in Special civil application no 275 of 1983 inasmuch as the said appellate authority observed that the occupancy certificate granted in the earlier proceedings under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 in favour of opponent no 2 who are predecessors-in-title in respect of the disputed property of the applicants was illegal in view of the provisions of Section 4 (1) (c) while deciding the appeal under section 13 of the Gujarat Rural Debtors Relief Act 1976 This is an important aspect which may go to the root of the matter of jurisdiction which could not be placed in very clearly Again the court observed in the impugned judgment that the sale deed between the parties dated 19. 11. 1964 was not registered one This is also a mistake apparent on record which is not disputed which has crept in which is successfully has pointed out Thus the applicants have successfully shown two points which have material bearing on the merits of the dispute between the parties ( 8 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Pandya for the applicants has firstly contended that the applicants have not been able to show a fit case for review of the impugned judgment in that he has contended that this court has earlier rejected Misc. civil application no 3 of 1995 - being an application for review in Special civil application no 275 of 1983 on 18. 1. Pandya for the applicants has firstly contended that the applicants have not been able to show a fit case for review of the impugned judgment in that he has contended that this court has earlier rejected Misc. civil application no 3 of 1995 - being an application for review in Special civil application no 275 of 1983 on 18. 1. 1995 Relying on the order passed in the said application it is contended that the same principles would apply to the present application and it should be rejected It is further submitted that the case does not fall in one of the principles analogous to the provisions of Order 47 Rule I of the Criminal Procedure Code Reliance is also placed on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary AIR 1995 SC 455 ( 9 ) IT is true that Misc. civil application no. 3 of 1995 for review came to be rejected by this court on 18. 1. 1995. In that order passed in that application this court considered all principles analogous to the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1. One of the main reasons why the application came to be rejected was that the applicant in that application was no a party in the proceedings before this court as well as before the Authorities below. In the circumstances it was observed by this court that there was no appropriate case for review. This court found that the application was meritless and it was accordingly rejected. The principles for consideration of the merits of the review application are analogous to the provisions enshrined in Order 47 Rule 1. There is also no dispute about the fact that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising powers of review which inhers in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. If the court finds that there is a case wherein an apparent mistake on the record of the case is found which has resulted into miscarriage of justice in respect of rights between the parties in relation to immovable properties and also in a case where sufficient cause is shown for review this court can exercise ins powers of review. If the court finds that there is a case wherein an apparent mistake on the record of the case is found which has resulted into miscarriage of justice in respect of rights between the parties in relation to immovable properties and also in a case where sufficient cause is shown for review this court can exercise ins powers of review. ( 10 ) IT would therefore be expedient to refer to the provisions of Order 47 Rules I and 2. There are as under: (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 cause 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 could 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 of 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 of 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. There are three circumstances enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 for review. The scope of review is ofcourse very limited. However review of judgment may be allowed on the following three grounds: (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could no be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made or (2) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or (3) for any other sufficient reason. No doubt a review proceeding cannot be equaled with the original hearing of the case. I is also very well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule I while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also very clear from the observations made by the higher Apex Court in Meera Bhanjas case (Supra) that the High Court cannot he silent spectator in a case where miscarriage of justice is noticed or whore there is a grave and palpable error is spelt out As observed hereinabove the mistake is apparent on the face of the record as the point is - as to whether the appellate authority in appeal under Section 13 can consider the validity and legality of a judgment and order rendered between the parties reaching to a finality decided on 7. 12 by the authority under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 ? It is apparent that this aspect would go to the root of jurisdiction of the authority whose decision is precisely in focus in Special civil application no. 275 of 1983 Thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 12 by the authority under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 ? It is apparent that this aspect would go to the root of jurisdiction of the authority whose decision is precisely in focus in Special civil application no. 275 of 1983 Thus there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Secondly the court is empowered to exercise review powers even on any other sufficient ground which has been interpreted to be analogous to the other reasons specified in Order 47 Rule 1 There is a sufficient reason as the dispute between the parties is going on in relation to immovable agricultural properties since more than four decades Refusing to consider a point which may go to the root of the jurisdictional aspect upon taking a conservative view and directing the parties to resolve such controversy in other forum or by starting a fresh inning aster forty years long legal battle and innings play would not only be a case of miscarriage of justice but would also be travesty of justice and therefore there is a fir case for review on the ground of sufficiency of reasons Thus these are two aspect which prompt this court to candidly mention that there is a lit and appropriate ease for review in the larger interest of justice more so when the inning had started much prior to the Independence Year of India In other words the dispute between the parties is more than four decades old Considering the peculiar facts and special circumstances emerging from the record of the case and the relevant provisions and the underlying object of review powers this court finds that there is a fit and appropriate case for review Accordingly this review application is required to be allowed. ( 11 ) IN the result this application for review is allowed setting aside the judgment and order passed in Special civil application no 275 of 1983 with a direction that the said special civil application is restored Office is directed to place this matter before the Bench concerned taking up such matters for hearing on merits for disposal. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the applicants of opponents submitted that this matter may be placed peremptorily Considering the facts and circumstances office is directed to list this matter on board commencing from 22nd March 1995 subject to the convenience of the court concerned There will be no order as to costs. Application Allowed. .