JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—This is a review petition filed by defendant-applicant against the judgment of this Court dated 29.1.2007 passed in Second Appeal No. 67 of 2007 by which, second appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K. Singh in support of this review petition and Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amitabh Agarwal, learned advocate who appeared for the plaintiff-respondent. 3. Suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent for cancellation of sale deed on the ground that same was not executed by him. Since the original sale deed could not come on record, relevant register No. 8 from the Sub-Registrar office was summoned by the trial Court and on taking photograph of the disputed thumb impression, Expert opinion was taken. Evidence having been adduced by both sides, trial Court dismissed the suit. Plaintiff filed first appeal. During pendency of appeal, digital photograph of the disputed thumb impression was taken as additional evidence and Anil Kumar Gupta who prepared photograph appeared. Appellate Court on consideration of entire oral and documentary evidence and the additional evidence so taken, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Second Appeal came to be filed before this Court by defendant-applicant. Arguments from both sides were advanced as appears from the judgment of this Court. Second appeal was ultimately dismissed at the admission stage by order dated 29.1.2007 and thus, this review petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that this Court has not properly considered the questions so involved and the grounds so taken and by taking wrong approach to the facts and law, appeal has been dismissed. Submission is that observation of this Court that taking of additional evidence was not objected by defendant and there was consent in this respect is wrong and observation that as the order admitting evidence was not challenged before this Court, it will be deemed that there was no procedural defect in the exercise, is factually incorrect and is otherwise erroneous and therefore, on account of non-consideration of the matter in issue in correct perspective, order of this Court needs recall. Submission is that observation about consent of defendant for the exercise so undertaken by appellate Court is incorrect and irrespective of its non-challenge at earlier stage, after the judgment of first appellate Court, appellant can challenge the same before this Court and therefore, dismissal of appeal cannot be said to be justified. In support of the submission that appellate Court while admitting additional evidence, has to follow the mandate of Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, reliance has been placed on the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Mahavir Singh v. Naresh Chandra, 2001(1) SCC 309 and a judgment given by this Court in the case of Risal Singh v. Bhagwat Singh, 2007 (1) ADJ 15. In support of the submission that even if earlier order was not challenged that can be challenged in the appeal, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court given in the case of Gurdev Singh v. Mehnga Ram, AIR 1997 SC 3572 . It is then submitted that even if additional evidence is accepted without there being report of Expert, decision could not have been taken. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of O. Bharathan v. Sudhakaran, AIR 1996 SC 1140 . 5. In the last, Sri Jain, learned senior Counsel submitted about the scope of interference in the review petition and it was argued that as the relevant aspects have not been properly considered, this Court can exercise powers of review. In support of the aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket v. Netaji Cricket Club, AIR 2005 SC 592 and decision given by this Court in the case of Rajpati Devi v. Sewak Singh, AIR 2005 All 242 . 6. In response to the aforesaid, Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior Counsel submits that second appeal was decided by this Court after hearing full-fledged arguments from both sides after noticing all the aspects so argued. 6. In response to the aforesaid, Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior Counsel submits that second appeal was decided by this Court after hearing full-fledged arguments from both sides after noticing all the aspects so argued. Submission is that if the approach and view taken by this Court is incorrect and there is any error in appreciation of argument, then the order can be termed to be erroneous enabling the applicant to file appeal before the Apex Court but on the facts and the grounds so taken, it cannot be a case of reviewing earlier order. It is then submitted that second appeal was argued by another learned advocate and the present learned advocate who is arguing present review petition was not Counsel and therefore, he cannot be expected to know that exactly what was argued and what transpired during course of deliberations and at the same time, it is submitted that learned Judge who has decided the appeal is also not available and therefore, what weighed in the mind of the Court in appreciation of argument, that can also not be ascertained and therefore, on both counts, no re-hearing of second appeal in the garb of review petition can be permitted. 7. In respect to the submission that there was no consent of the appellant and additional evidence in the shape of digital photographs of the disputed thumb impression was not taken with the approval of appellant, submission is that on moving application by plaintiff on 25.11.2006 (Annexure 4) to the counter affidavit in the review petition, specific prayer was made that to ascertain correctness of the disputed thumb impression and to arrive at a particular conclusion, digital photograph is required to be taken, the defendant by making endorsement in writing clearly stated that “he has no objection”. After the order of first appellate Court dated 25.11.2006, digital photograph was taken on that very day, as it was already summoned and there is an order of the Court in this respect which bears signature of Counsel for both sides. After the said evidence, first appellate Court, in the light of statement of witness who appeared with photograph and keeping in mind various details as was available in the record taking help of various authentic text books, came to the conclusion that there is basic difference/distinction in the thumb impression. After the said evidence, first appellate Court, in the light of statement of witness who appeared with photograph and keeping in mind various details as was available in the record taking help of various authentic text books, came to the conclusion that there is basic difference/distinction in the thumb impression. Submission is that appellate Court has decided the matter after taking note of all these facts. Thus in no case, it can be said that it is incorrect exercise and not fault having been pointed out, in the reasons so given by first appellate Court, nothing can be argued in the review petition. 8. It was then submitted that scope of review petition is very limited and re-hearing of second appeal cannot be permitted as there is no end to it. In support of the submission that scope of review is very limited and on consideration of arguments from the side of applicant about matter just like first appeal, dismissal of appeal cannot be set aside, reliance has been placed on the judgment given by Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Kishori Lal Minocha, AIR 1980 SC 674 ; Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1160 and in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, AIR 1995 SC 455 . 9. In view of aforesaid, this Court has to decide the matter. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that second appeal was decided by this Court after hearing arguments from both sides and after noticing arguments in detail, by a detail/speaking order. There is no complaint of the fact that appellant’s side was deprived of reasonable opportunity of putting the argument. There is further no dispute about the fact that Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior advocate who is arguing the matter at review stage was not the Counsel for appellant when appeal was decided. Thus, this can be safely said that exactly what arguments were advanced and pressed by learned advocate who argued the appeal and what were the consideration during deliberations and what were the question put by the Court, which was answered by learned Counsel or not, cannot be possibly in the knowledge of present learned advocate. This Court will have to accept that whatever was argued has been dealt by assigning its own reason by taking a particular view and nothing was left undecided. This Court will have to accept that whatever was argued has been dealt by assigning its own reason by taking a particular view and nothing was left undecided. The judgment was not reserved as it is clear from the order and therefore, if it was dictated in the open Court, there cannot be any complaint of non-consideration of any argument/aspect if so argued. 11. Apart from aforesaid, so far as the argument of learned Counsel for the applicant that for taking additional evidence, there was no approval of defendant and he can challenge the same, that exercise in the second appeal is concerned, suffice it to say that there cannot be any quarrel about the rights of appellant to challenge that exercise in the appeal but at the same time, on the facts, this is clear that application so moved by plaintiff was not opposed by the applicant and for taking digital photograph, there is a clear endorsement that the applicant has no objection. The purpose of placing of digital photograph has been clearly stated in the application dated 25.11.2006. There was a purpose and reason in tendering that evidence. Anil Kumar Gupta who has prepared photograph appeared and gave his evidence. First Appellate Court has examined merits in that evidence in the light of authoritative details from relevant text books and has assigned reasons for taking a particular view. It is not a case where first appellate Court has done the job of expert rather, he has believed one set of evidence in the light of authoritative notes on the subject. Besides evidence which was taken at the first appellate Court stage, Appellate Court has also referred other evidence which was noticed by the trial Court and on critical examination of all evidence, a conclusion has been arrived at. The approach of first appellate Court was approved by this Court by assigning its own reason. Mere observation of this Court at one place or the other that as exercise of first appellate Court was not challenged, that strengthen the case of plaintiff, cannot be taken so seriously by the applicant as reading of complete judgment of this Court makes it clear that while dismissing the appeal, detail reasons on all facts has been given and then reasonings and findings given by the first appellate Court has been dittoed. 12. 12. In view of aforesaid, this is clear that while dismissing the appeal, all the arguments which were advanced were noticed. Otherwise also, arguments of any error in the order of this Court cannot be the subject matter of review petition as for this exercise, there is remedy with the applicant i.e. to take up the matter to the higher forum. Thus, the judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel for applicant, relating to challenge of the exercise of first appellate Court before this Court and the role of expert in the matter, is not to improve the contention of the applicant. 13. So far as the question of scope of interference in the review petition is concerned, applicant’s side has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court given in the case of Board of Control for Cricket, AIR 2005 SC 592 whereas respondent’s side has relied upon, several judgments of Apex Court as noticed above. On careful examination of all decisions, this Court can safely say that there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition as laid down by the Apex Court but that is to be applied and seen on the facts of every particular case. 14. In the judgment given by Apex Court in the case of Devraju Pillai (supra), it has been said that on the decision of second appeal by learned single Judge, review before another Judge, may not be maintainable and appropriate remedy is to file appeal. In the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja (supra) it was said that review Court is not to act as appellate Court and error apparent on the face of record means, error which strikes one on mere looking on record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the point whether there may conceivably two opinions. The observation as made in para 8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja (supra) is to be quoted here : “It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. The observation as made in para 8 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja (supra) is to be quoted here : “It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1 while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations : (SCC p. 390, para 3) “It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; that may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court.” 15. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court.” 15. In respect to error apparent in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Satyanarain Laxminarain Hegde v. Mallikarun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 , following observation was made : “An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ.” 16. At this stage, this Court has to make observation in respect to arguments in the review petition by a new Counsel. This aspect has already been dealt by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, JT 1997 (1) SC 486. The observation of the Apex Court as quoted in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra) is to be quoted here : “..The record of appeal indicates that Sri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when appeal was heard and decided on merits. The Review petition has been filed by Sri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing Counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained “No Objection Certificate” from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the “No Objection Certificate” would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. That apart, he has not obtained “No Objection Certificate” from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the “No Objection Certificate” would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the “No objection certificate” from the erstwhile Counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits.” 17. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court was followed by this Court and a Review Petition was rejected on this ground as well. Reference can be given to the order of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 30419 of 2005 filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4450 of 1986 (Mohan Lal Baghla v. Board of Revenue and others). 18. On the facts and keeping in mind the limited scope of exercise by review Court and specially the aspect that second appeal was not argued by present learned Counsel and he is the subsequent Counsel not being aware about the facts and aspects which were argued before previous learned Single Judge and the appeal having been decided on merits, by a speaking order, in the review petition, no interference is required. 19. For the reasons given above, review petition fails and is dismissed. ————