JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This application under Section 151 read with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) has been moved by the applicant in the review petition, praying for bringing on record the discovery of more important matters and law and facts and for impleading Manjit Singh and Kiran Kumar as party respondents in the review petition. 2. It is averred in the application that after the dismissal of RSA No. 380 of 1993 by this Court, the judgment and decree wherein are sought to be reviewed, respondent No. 1 executed a registered sale deed dated 1.1.2002 of the land, subject matter of the said RSA, which brings to the fore the question as to from where the land sold by the said sale deed has now become available. Proposed respondent Manjit Singh is the power of attorney of respondent No. 1 and Kiran Kumar, the other proposed respondent, is the purchaser as per the sale deed, copy whereof is Annexure A/1. In these circumstances, the aforesaid application has been made to bring the aforesaid factum of sale on record and to implead the power of attorney of respondent No. 1 and Kiran Kumar as party-respondents in the review petition. 3. Proposed respondent Kiran Kumar filed reply to the application and raised the preliminary objections that the present application is not maintainable inasmuch as Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is not applicable to the proceedings in review petition as the dispute between the parties stood finally decided with the dismissal of the RSA and that a civil suit against the proposed respondent Kiran Kumar has been instituted by the applicant challenging the validity of the sale in question. On merits, the claim as made out in the application has been denied, except admitting the execution of the sale deed as alleged in the application. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records. 5. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code reads as follows: " 1. On merits, the claim as made out in the application has been denied, except admitting the execution of the sale deed as alleged in the application. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records. 5. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code reads as follows: " 1. Application for review of judgment.—(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 Causes, 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. (Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.) 6. (Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.) 6. It is apparent on a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that a party aggrieved by a decree or decision as specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), may apply for review on any of the following grounds: (i) that some new or important matter or evidence has been discovered which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree or the order was passed; or (ii) that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) that there is any other sufficient reason for review of the decree/ order. 6. It is evident from the grounds (i) and (ii) supra, on the basis of which a review petition can be maintained, that such ground of review must be such which existed at the date of the decree and the rule does not authorise the review of a judgment and decree on the ground of the happening of some subsequent event. The third ground supra i.e. "any other sufficient reason" can also not be read independently of the grounds (i) and (ii) supra, but must be analogous to the grounds (i) and/or (ii) above, meaning thereby that such sufficient reason must also be in existence before or at the time of passing of the judgment and the decree. 7. In the case in hand, it is not the case of the applicant that the facts now sought to be proved existed before or at the time of passing of the judgment and decree and could not be brought to the notice of the Court by the applicant for want of knowledge of such facts or despite due diligence on his part. Evidently, the facts sought to be brought on record relate to the period subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree by this Court, therefore, cannot be taken into account for deciding the review petition. 8. Evidently, the facts sought to be brought on record relate to the period subsequent to the passing of the judgment and decree by this Court, therefore, cannot be taken into account for deciding the review petition. 8. Before or at the time of dismissal of the appeal, the proposed respondents had nothing to do with the Us or the subject matter thereof. Therefore, there is no reason to implead them as party respondents in the review petition merely because one of them has now allegedly acquired a right in the subject matter of the suit by the act of the other. 9. In view of the above conclusions, this application merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.-