Mohd. Sheikh filed Civil Second Appeal No. 28/82 against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.82 of District Judge, Srinagar whereby the plaintiff appellants suit for declaration and in alternative for enforcement of right of prior purchase in respect of 4 marlas of land with trees standing thereon situated at village Kanguna Tehsil Shopian was dismissed. The Civil Second Appeal was dismissed on 25.3.1983 by following order :- "Nemo present. Neither the appellant nor his counsel is present. The Civil Second appeal is accordingly dismissed in default." Srinagar, 25.3.83 Appellant-applicant filed an application No. 44-A/B on 26.3.1983 for recall of the order and restoration of appeal. During pendency of this application as the non-applicant respondents to the main appeal could not be served through ordinary mode and manner, Appellant filed an application supported by an affidavit praying for orders for substituted service through publication in newspaper. For the purpose he filed an application No. 367/87. The motion was allowed on 13.10.1987 after the Ld. Judge recorded his satisfaction that the respondents other than respondent No. 1 who was represented by the counsel could not be served in the ordinary mode and manner. Accordingly, respondents were directed to be served through publication in daily `Aftab, after the publication charges are deposited within ten days. However, this direction of the court was flouted, in as much as, steps were not taken by the party for publication of the notice. The matter came on board on 7.11.1987 on this date, last opportunity for the above purpose was given. Yet this opportunity too was not availed of. Ultimately when the matter came up before court on 29.1.1988 the court dismissed the CMP as also the appeal. The motion is moved for review of the above dismissal order. Heard Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant is seeking review of the order on the ground that even if he had not taken required step for service on other side, yet as one of the respondent was before the court through counsel, the matter could not have been dismissed. The ground cannot serve to prop up the review petition. It is applicant-appellant himself who sought publication through substituted service. As per his own case, the respondents could not be served in ordinary mode and manner. The court on consideration of the matter recorded satisfaction and ordered substituted service through publication. The ground cannot serve to prop up the review petition. It is applicant-appellant himself who sought publication through substituted service. As per his own case, the respondents could not be served in ordinary mode and manner. The court on consideration of the matter recorded satisfaction and ordered substituted service through publication. Obviously the order is on courts satisfaction, is required by Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC. Once the steps are not taken, the dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution cannot be said to be by mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Only because one of the respondent is present through counsel while other respondents are not before court, for plaintiffs failure to take steps for service and prosecute the case, it cannot be said that the dismissal order in the circumstances as above is vitiated. If for polemic purpose it is taken for a moment that the dismissal order is erroneous, same cannot be a ground to question the order in review. Even in broader sense, the application essentially for recall of dismissal order/restoration of application and appeal, cannot be a review application. In the aforesaid view of the matter, no ground much less a good ground is made out. The review petition is dismissed as not merited.