ORDER G.S. Sandhu, F.C. - The brief facts of this case are, that after death of SC Lambardar Ram Saroop of Phillaur, District Jalandhar, a proclamation was made in the village to fill up this post. In response five candidates including petitioner and respondent applied. Tehsildar, Phillaur recommended the name of Tara Chand, but SDM Phillaur recommended the name of Yadwinder Kumar. After considering merits and demerits of the candidates, the District Collector, Jalandhar, vide his order dated 30.10.2003 appointed Tara Chand as SC Lambardar of the said village. Aggrieved by this Order Yadwinder Kumar filed an appeal before Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide his order dated 4.2.2004 accepted the appeal and appointed Yadwinder Kumar as new SC Lambardar of the said village. Aggrieved Tara Chand filed an appeal before Ld. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, who, vide his order dated 26.4.2004 accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 4.2.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and upheld the order dated 30.10.2003 passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar appointing Tara Chand as SC Lambardar of the said village. Now, Yadwinder Kumar has filed the present review petition under section 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887, to review the order dated 26.4.2004 passed by the Id. financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab. 2. I have heard the counsel for the applicant. The counsel mentioned that the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 29.4.2004 has wrongly decided the case against the applicant without hearing him. He further mentioned that though the interlocutory (Zimni) order mentions the date as 26.4.2004, the Financial Commissioner had signed these orders on 29.4.2004 only. He further mentioned that the applicant being sick could not present himself on the fixed date and therefore, the order of the Financial Commissioner needs to be reviewed and thereafter decision taken on merits. 3. I have considered the argument advanced by the counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record of the case. This is a review petition and in a review petition only minor clerical mistake can be rectified. The review does not empower the Financial Commissioner to re-hear/re-decide a case, which stands deeded by his predecessor after taking all factors into account. This is a review petition and in a review petition only minor clerical mistake can be rectified. The review does not empower the Financial Commissioner to re-hear/re-decide a case, which stands deeded by his predecessor after taking all factors into account. I have seen the interlocutory (Zimni) orders of the case and it has been specifically mentioned that the applicant Yadwinder Kumar was present in person on 19.4.2004 when the case was next fixed for 26.4.2004. On 26.4.2004, the applicant did not appear before the Financial Commissioner and he vide his detailed order accepted the petition restoring the order of Collector. It has been further mentioned that the interlocutory orders that at 4.00 P.M. on 26.4.2004, a medical certificate on behalf of the applicant was presented, but by then the order had been announced, dictated and signed by the Financial Commissioner. The mere clerical mistake that the detailed order bear the order dated 29.4.2004 and not 26.4.2004 cannot in any way negate the fact that Financial Commissioner decided the Revision Petition before him on merits after taking into account all the facts presented to him. Accordingly, the review petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Announced. Petition dismissed. ———————