JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiffs-petitioners have filed this petition under section 115 CPC against the order dated 26.2.1996 passed by learned District Judge, Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Cases Nos. 243 of 1991, 97 of 1993 and 48 of 1996, Sahib Ram & Anr. v. Balram & Ors. , by which the learned District Judge dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner plaintiff u/O. 47 R. 1 CPC. 2. The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners filed a civil suit against the respondents for specific performance, possession and recovery of Rs. 90,000/-. The learned District Judge disposed of the suit by his judgment dated 22.10.1991. He only passed a decree for Rs. 50,000/-. Rest of the reliefs were rejected. 3. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred a review petition before the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.2.1996. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge held that the plaintiffs could state the grounds on which the review petition was sought. The review application was also found to be barred by time. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The learned counsel has submitted that the original civil suit was fixed for arguments on 15.10.1991. For want of time, the arguments of the parties remained inconclusive. The Court rose for the day and the next date fixed was 22.10.1991. However, inadvertently in the order-sheet the date was fixed not for arguments but for judgment. When the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the date fixed went to the Court armed with case law to argue the case he found the presiding officer in the chamber. Then the learned presiding officer came out and announced the judgment. The grievance of the petitioners is that the learned trial Judge did not afford complete hearing to them. In the review petition, the petitioners stated in detail that the judgment pronounced by the trial Court was incomplete and without hearing their learned counsel. The plaintiffs could not make proper submissions and the judgment also suffers from patent lacunae which ought to have been rectified by accepting the review application filed by the petitioners. In the review petition, the petitioners stated in detail that the judgment pronounced by the trial Court was incomplete and without hearing their learned counsel. The plaintiffs could not make proper submissions and the judgment also suffers from patent lacunae which ought to have been rectified by accepting the review application filed by the petitioners. The petitioners in their petition filed u /O. 47 R. 1 CPC clearly stated the mistakes apparent on the face of the record but the learned Judge did not even consider their arguments and submissions. While passing the judgment and decree, the learned Judge lost sight of certain material evidence and documents produced by the plaintiffs. The judgment, therefore, suffers from omission of consideration of these documents. The learned District Judge was also wrong in not condoning delay found in the presentation of the review application. 5. I have considered the arguments and perused the impugned order as well as the judgment dated 22.10.1991 passed in civil original suit No. 39/81. A perusal of the judgment dated 22.10.1991 shows that the learned trial Court considered the evidence and arguments of both the parties and recorded the findings. In the review petition, in my opinion, the petitioners could not point out any such ground which could entitle them to press the Court for reviewing the judgment. It appears that the plaintiffs are feeling highly aggrieved by the denial of reliefs claimed by them in the civil original suit. This is the underlying object to reagitate the points. The allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's advocate was not allowed fully to argue the case appears to be groundless. If the fact would have been correct, the order-sheet of 15.6.1991 would have indicated the fact that the arguments in the case remained inconclusive. Further, if the grievance of the learned advocate would have been genuine and bona fide, the plaintiffs would have lost no time in presenting the application that their arguments were still incomplete. The review application was moved after a long interval. Hence in my opinion the above grounds appear to be devoid of truth. 6. It may further be stated that a review is permitted only on the three grounds specified in R. 1 of the 0. 47 CPC. The review application was moved after a long interval. Hence in my opinion the above grounds appear to be devoid of truth. 6. It may further be stated that a review is permitted only on the three grounds specified in R. 1 of the 0. 47 CPC. A review is not permissible where the prayer is substantially to reargue the matter and obtain a fresh finding of the Court for 0. 47 R. 1 is clearly not intended to require a Judge to write a second judgment reversing his first because of fooler arguments and further consideration perhaps he could be persuaded to take another view.For the above reasons, I find no substance in the petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision.dismissed *******