D. M. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) -THE present petition is under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure code for review of the Judgment of this court dated 19. 5. 1995 passed in Misc. Appeal Nos. 631 and 632 of 1992. ( 2 ) CASE of the parties is, both parties in the year 1974 formed an unregistered Partnership firm in the name and style 'm/s madhuban' Same was reconstituted once in 1984 and then on 1. 10. 1986 in which plaintiffs 1 to 4 and defendants 1 to 4 were partners. In the year 1990 because of dissension among the partners, defendant No. 1 who was Managing -partner of the firm dissolved the partnership firm by notice dated 22. 10. 1990 purported to be one under Section 143 of the Indian Partnership Act stating that such dissolution would take effect from 1. 11. 1990. ( 3 ) IN order to settle the dispute and apportionment of the profit and loss the parties referred the matter before two arbitrators, but plaintiff No 4 in the present suit did not give any consent for the appointment of two arbitrators since according to him Clause (13) of the unregistered partnership deed dated 1. 10. 1986 clearly stipulated that the dispute pertaining to partnership business was to be referred to a local Arbitrator with consent of all parties Plaintiff No. 4 therefore filed a suit under Section 8 (1) of the India Arbitration Act in the court of the learned civil Judge (Senior division ). Bhubaneswar. In that suit plaintiff prayed for injunction to restrain the defendants not to carry on any business in the name of the partnership nor with the partnership fund. Since partnership was in existence, he claimed that the assets of the partnership was to be equally distributed among the members. Learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 18. 2. 1992 granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant from proceeding with the arbitration case. Since partnership was in existence, he claimed that the assets of the partnership was to be equally distributed among the members. Learned Subordinate Judge by order dated 18. 2. 1992 granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant from proceeding with the arbitration case. Defendants challenged this order before the Additional District Judge, bhubaneswar in Misc Appeal No. 15 of 1992 learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Subordinate judge According to the plaintiff, learned subordinate Judge gave a finding in the appeal that the proceeding under Section 8 (1} of the Arbitration Act was not maintainable, since the partnership was an unregistered one and Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act bars an application under Section 8 (2) of the act. ( 4 ) SINCE according to the plaintiff Section 69 (3) (a) of the Indian Partnership Act allowed that a party can enforce his right to sue for dissolution of firm or form or for accounts of a dissolved firm or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm could not be barred under that provision, plaintiff No 4 filed the present suit, i. e. O. S. No 129 of 1992 with a prayer for rendition of accounts and for distribution of the assets and liability of the firm and for other appropriate reliefs. In that suit defendant No. 1 alone filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to stay the suit on the ground that the dispute between the parties were before the arbitrator. Plaintiffs filed an objection to the said petition for stay of the suit. The learned subordinate Judge by order dated 29. 8. 1992 allowed prayer for stay. Plaintiffs approached this court in the present appeal in which this court by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal. The judgment of this court is sought to be reviewed by the present petitioner. ( 5 ) MR. A. Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioners advanced lengthy argument both with regard to the facts and points of law involved in the case. The cornerstone of the argument of Mr. Mukherji is that when the learned Additional District Judge in Misc. Appeal no. 15 of 1992 held that provisions of the arbitration Act could not be applicable in case of an unregistered firm as "provided under section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act. The cornerstone of the argument of Mr. Mukherji is that when the learned Additional District Judge in Misc. Appeal no. 15 of 1992 held that provisions of the arbitration Act could not be applicable in case of an unregistered firm as "provided under section 69 (3) of the Partnership Act. That decision becomes res judicata. According to the learned counsel this court while dealing with the matter though noted the contention but inadvertently omitted to give a finding on that point and this. according to Mr. Mukherji, materially affected decision in the appeal by the Subordinate Judge. In support of his contention mr. Mukherji- cited two decision reported in Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. Kararia traders (India) Ltd. and Premlata (Smt.)and Anr. v M/s. Ishar Dass Chaman Lal and ors. ( 6 ) MR. Bijan Ray, learned counsel for the defendants took me to the judgment of the-learned Additional District Judge and strenuously urged that the decision of the learned additional District Judge was not a decision touching any of the issues that related to the provisions under Section 8 (2} of the Indian arbitration Act. In fact, the entire judgment according to Mr. Ray would show that the court was dealing with only the matter of injunction allowed by the lower court against the defendants directing not to carry on business in foreign liquor and beer or not to deal with the transaction of the property of the firm but nothing regarding appointment of arbitrators, It is the contention of Mr Ray that once the matter is not decided between the parties under any issue in dispute, question of res judicata would not arise it is further submitted that when learned single Judge in the appeal which is sought to be reviewed mentioned the points of res judicata and incorporated the matter for discussion and formulated the points which is apparent on the face of the record and thereafter in discussion gave a finding that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and thus was conscious of the position that the court was dealing with the matter which needed adjudication and after so doing has rendered a judgment, it cannot be said that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. In support of his contention he has cited the decisions reported in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmal kumar Choudhury and the judgment of this court reported in Bibhuti Bhusan Mohapatra v. Berhampur University and Anr. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the lower court order as well as judgment of this court which is sought to be reviewed. 1 am unable to accept the contention of mr. Mukherji that the error is apparent on the fact of the record. Though point raised by Mr mukerji so skillfully and artistically presented purports to touch the point of error apparent on the fact of record yet in substance and on going little deeper into the matter it cannot be said that a ground has been made out for review I may point out that the process by which Mr. Mukherji asks this court to look to the judgment on the face of it, really is not so and rather needs to be examined by a meticulous application of mind and this is what has been exactly prohibited by the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja (supra ). I accept the contention of Mr, Ray and having satisfied that the case for review has no merit, dismiss the same ( 8 ) IN the result, the Civil Review is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Review dismissed. .