Judgment 1. This petition has been filed for review of the judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 recorded in Second Appeal No. 76 of 1989 by this Court. Since this petition was filed with delay. I.A. No. 3374 of 2004 was filed for condoning the delay. On notice the opposite Parties have appeared through counsel and both sides have been heard, with consent, both upon the application for condonation of delay as well on the petition for review. 2. First taking up I.A. No. 3374 of 2004, the delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground of illness of the petitioner for which medical papers have also been filed. The delay is condoned. Thereafter, learned counsel for both the parties have been heard on the main application for review, as aforesaid, and this matter is being disposed of with their consent, at this stage itself. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner who was defendant in the original suit submitted that the plaintiff in the original suit had not sought any relief regarding right of easement but that has been granted in the judgment. Second point was that the plaintiff had sought for declaration about title which relief, however, was not given by the Court holding that the lane in question in the survey was recorded in the name of concerned municipality (which fact had come in course of pendency of the suit, as per submission). It was argued that it was not for the defendant to add the municipality as a party but this Court still found that this question of title could not be decided in absence of municipality as a party, taking notice of a development taking place after institution of the suit. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the other side submitted that in the judgment this Court was aware that no such expressed relief had been sought but this grant of relief was inherent in the averment of the pleading and could have been granted under law and under such circumstances this Court had found that no fresh evidence was required for grant of that relief. It was also argued that the scope of review was very limited and if the aggrieved party was not satisfied with the judgment or order of a Court, that party could always move the higher court, in this case, the Supreme Court. It was also argued that the scope of review was very limited and if the aggrieved party was not satisfied with the judgment or order of a Court, that party could always move the higher court, in this case, the Supreme Court. It was submitted that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that this Court should reopen the entire hearing on those two points which this Court could not do and for that the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja V/s. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary; A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 455. 5. In so far as the first ground contended by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court places reliance upon a decision by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naga Manjhi V/s. Kini Mahatani; A.I.R. 1933 Patna 695 where it was held that it was the duty of a suitor to set forth in his plaint the facts which he considered entitle him to relief but in a majority of cases he need do no more than suggest to the relief which he considered himself entitled in law as it was for the Court to decide, as a matter of law, when it has decided the question of fact, what relief the plaintiff was entitled to. This Court in this judgment was well aware that the plaintiff expressly had not claimed the right of easement but a relief was granted after detailed discussion of that matter in paragraph 30, onwards, of the judgment, also in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Gobind Yadav V/s. Deoki Devi; 1980 B.L.J. 276 and another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kameswarama V/s. Subba Rao; A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 884. 6. In so far as the document relating to title of the municipality over the lane coming in course of pendency of the suit is concerned, that document was on the record and considered by the lower Court. It does not appear that any objection was made that the document should not be so considered. In that view of the matter, I do not think that aforesaid document which was a valuable document could and should have been ignored. 7. In view of the discussion aforesaid, this petition is dismissed.