JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the judgment dated 16.1.2009 which is sought to be reviewed. 2. May be that accidentally the earlier suit no. 4/79 was described to have been filed in Civil Court, and the decree passed therein having been confirmed upto the Board of Revenue, while as a matter of fact the suit was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, whose decree was affirmed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, and the matter was not carried further. Thus the fact does remain, that appropriate suit was filed before competent court, and that decree attained finality, on account of having not been challenged further. Therefore, nothing much turns on this accidental slip. 3. Then, so far as the arguments on merits are concerned, a look at the document Annexure-1 of the writ petition which is judgment rendered in earlier suit no. 4/79 does show, that the issue no. 1 and 2 very much comprehended the question about Kamla Devi being the Khatedar tenant, and about Kamla Devi having purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 7.2.1975 for a sum of Rs. 8000/- from Kale Khan, and the learned trial court in that judgment found, that the plaintiff had produced the certified copy of the sale deed, which is registered document, and only challenge to the document was, that the sale deed is forged, as some imposter was produced to get the document registered, therefore, F.I.R. was lodged, but then nothing was shown to substantiate the submission about lodging of F.I.R., so much so that even copy of the F.I.R. was also not produced. Thus, considering this, and other attending circumstances this issue no. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Likewise, considering material on record issue no.1 was also decided in favour of the plaintiff, holding the plaintiff to be Khatedar. It is significant to note, that this judgment was appealed against, which appeal was dismissed, and then was not challenged any further. Thus, the judgment acquired finality. 4. On the face of this the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Kamla Devi had not produced the original sale deed, whether in the present suit, or in the previous suit, with the result, that it cannot be said that the sale in favour of Kamla Devi is proved, cannot be entertained in the review petition. 5. 5. As noticed above, the certified copy of the registered sale deed was produced, and no objection was raised about production thereof.No other submission was made.Consequently, we do not find any force in the review petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.Review Petition Dismissed. *******