Judgment : As against the order rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under O.47, Rule 1, C.P.C. to review the judgment delivered in O.S.No.202 of 1988 on 2. 1995, he has presented this revision before this Court. 2. Originally, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.202 of 1988 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession as against the defendants, the respondents herein. During the course of trial, the trial Court found that there is no jurisdiction to try the suit and therefore, it dismissed the same on 13. 1993. As against that judgment, the petitioner filed C.M.A No.24 of 1993 and by the order dated 23. 1994 the Appellate Court set aside the judgment dismissing the suit and remanded the matter to consider the question afresh. 3. On 4. 1994 the counsel for the petitioner made an endorsement that he would not press the jurisdiction point. Therefore, on 10. 1994 the trial was conducted afresh. After examining of the witnesses, on 2. 1995 the trial Court dismissed the suit. Instead of filing an appeal against the said dismissal, the petitioner on 24. 1995 filed I.A.No.882 of 1995 under O.47, Rule 1, C.P.C. to review the judgment on the ground that the jurisdiction point was not decided and that the entire appreciation of the evidence was under the misconception of law and facts. This was objected to by the defendants by filing a counter. 4. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Munsif, Aruppukottai, on the basis of the reasonings, dismissed the said petition, as there is no ground to seek for review. This is challenged in this revision. 5. A reading of the O.47, Rule 1, C.P.C. would go to show that the powers of review could be invoked only when there is a patent error on the face of it. The review petition filed in this case is on the ground that oral and documentary evidence and written arguments were not considered and that the judgment in O.S.No.202 of 1988 was opposed to law, facts, evidence and circumstances of the case. 6. If the plaintiff has got grievance that the evidence adduced by him has not been properly considered, it is for him to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. This may not be a ground for review. 7. 6. If the plaintiff has got grievance that the evidence adduced by him has not been properly considered, it is for him to file an appeal before the appropriate forum. This may not be a ground for review. 7. Moreover, it is an admitted case that after the remand by the Appellate Court, the counsel for the petitioner requested the trial Court to have a de novo trial and stated that he would not press for the point of pecuniary jurisdiction. So, on the basis of the representation and the endorsement on behalf of the plaintiff, the Court had a full trial and on appreciation of the evidence, it found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs sought for. 8. Even in this revision, it is merely mentioned that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. Neither in the grounds nor in the affidavit filed before this Court, there is reason shown as to why the point of pecuniary jurisdiction was not pressed and de novo trial was sought. On going through the impugned order and the earlier judgment and decree dated 2. 1995 made in O.S.No.202 of 1988, I do not find any reason to differ from the reasonings given by the lower Court to dismiss the petition for review. 9. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.11517 of 1996 is also dismissed.