Judgment 1. This review application is filed by the appellant in S.A.No.411 of 2009 to review the Judgment rendered in the above appeal dated 12.7.2011. 2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the review petitioner is the appellant in the above appeal and the plaintif in the suit and she filed the suit for injunction and the suit was decreed by the trial Court and reversed in the appeal and therefore the review petitioner filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.411 of 2009 and without properly appreciating the appeal filed by the review petitioner who proved her possession, this Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of the lower appellate Court. Hence, this review application was filed. 3. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner. It is well settled that under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., a review can be entertained only on certain grounds and unless the review petitioner is able to bring his case within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., the review cannot be entertained. Further, under the guise of review, the review petitioner cannot expect the Court to reivew the whole case without furnishing any new material. 4. It is seen from the Judgment rendered by me on the basis of Exs.B1 to B15, I held that the review petitioner has not proved her possession and therefore she is not entitled to a decree of injunction and no new materials have been brought to my knowledge by the review petitioner to take a different view. 5. Hence, I do not find any reason to entertain the review application and it is dismissed. No costs.