JUDGMENT : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties finally. 2. A disputant before the Cooperative Court and respondent no.4 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 171 of 2008, is before this Court, seeking review of Judgment dated 12-9-2008. 3. The brief submission of Advocate Shri Khapre is, dispute of applicant under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, though dismissed by the Cooperative Court, appeal preferred against it was allowed by a reasoned Judgment. The rival claimant (respondent no. 4 in this review proceedings) then filed a Writ Petition before this Court, which came to be registered as Writ Petition No. 3525 of 2007. The learned Single Judge found no substance in the said challenge as seen in reasoned order dated 31st October 2007. That order was then questioned in Letters Patent Appeal. The LPA Court did not look into the entire material on record while upsetting the application of mind by the learned Single Judge or then by Cooperative Appellate Court. Advocate Shri Kshirsagar for said rival claimant has submitted that, in effect, the original disputant is now seeking re-hearing of LPA and all grounds being pressed into service require re-appreciation of evidence. He submits that the Special Leave Petition filed against the Judgment delivered in LPA was rejected in motion hearing and as such, there is no question of this Court embarking upon such re-appreciation. 4. In the light of these arguments and as insisted by Advocate Shri Kshirsagar, it has become necessary for this Court to first pass order on M.C.A., either allowing it or rejecting it, and then contingent upon such adjudication, to consider placing of LPA again for rehearing. 5. According to Advocate Khapre, the disputant was allotted a house built on Plot No.23 and in support of said allotment, the disputant produced two documents namely Exh.D-12 and D-13. In both these documents, the Plot number allotted appeared as Plot No.50 and corrected to read as Plot No. 23. The correction was duly initialed by the Secretary of Cooperative Housing Society. The disputant was accordingly placed in possession. His dispossession by the present respondent no.4 led to filing of a dispute. The dispossession was on the strength of a communication dated 208-1990 signed by the said Secretary and also President of the Society (Exh.D-19) which reveal that the said house was allotted to respondent no.4. The disputant was accordingly placed in possession. His dispossession by the present respondent no.4 led to filing of a dispute. The dispossession was on the strength of a communication dated 208-1990 signed by the said Secretary and also President of the Society (Exh.D-19) which reveal that the said house was allotted to respondent no.4. The respondent no.4 forcibly dispossessed the disputant and hence, with appropriate prayers seeking declaration and also restoration of possession, dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; came to be filed. During pendency of this dispute between the parties, Society also executed a sale deed in favour of respondent no.4 and hence, that sale deed was also assailed. The Cooperative Court dismissed the dispute, but Cooperative Appellate Court, after appreciation of the entire material available on record, has allowed it. He has taken us through the said Judgment delivered by the Cooperative Appellate Court. He contends that overwriting and erasers in Exh.D-12 and 13 is only one of the factors looked into by the Cooperative Appellate Court. For valid reasons, the said Court has found it appropriate to discard the document at Exh.D-19 in favour of respondent no.4 and to accept the documents and Exh.D12 and 13. He further submits that the Appellate Court in the process has made some categorical observations about entitlement of respondent no.4 to said house No.23 and about the mode and manner in which the order dated 20-8-1990 came to be issued by the President and Secretary behind the back of disputant in breach of principles of natural justice. The appellate Court has looked into the evidence of holder of power of attorney examined on behalf of the said respondent and gave cogent reasons for not accepting him as a power of attorney and for holding that his evidence is inadmissible. He contends that in the light of this appreciation and findings of facts by the Court which is final for said purpose, when the learned Single Judge in extraordinary jurisdiction did not find it proper to disturb the same, the letters patent jurisdiction could not have been exercised in such a mode and manner. He points out the application of mind by this Court in its Judgment delivered in LPA on 12-9-2008. He points out the application of mind by this Court in its Judgment delivered in LPA on 12-9-2008. According to him, in the said Judgment, this Court has only looked into three documents i.e. Exhibit D-12 & D-13 in favour of the present disputant and document at Exh.D-19 in favour of the respondent no.4. On the basis of these documents, inferences have been drawn and the finding contrary to material on record has been reached. He submits that if LPA Court wanted to disagree with the finding recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court, it could not have done so without evaluating the entire material looked into by that Court. He has contended that as invalidity of Exh.D-19 looked into by Appellate Court, the lack of its binding character in so far as the present disputant is concerned, as recorded by it are the material factors which are ignored by the LPA Court. The finding of Cooperative Appellate Court that though respondent no. 4 pleaded allotment vide letter dated 27-11-1989, no such letter could be produced by her and there was no letter of possession with respondent no.4, categorically reached by Cooperative Appellate Court are again overlooked. He also contends that the Cooperative Appellate Court has found that respondent no.4 could not establish her possession prior to letter dated 20-8-1990 and this aspect has again not been noticed while reversing the Judgment of Cooperative Appellate Court. He, in this situation, submits that the appreciation of evidence of respondent no.4 and effect of admission given on her behalf needed independent evaluation and but then the finding on said evidence recorded by Cooperative Appellate Court are lost sight of. Thus, when there is failure to look into entire material which led Cooperative Appellate Court to a particular conclusion, the application of mind by the Division Bench in Letters Patent jurisdiction is unsustainable and it is nothing but an error apparent on the face of record. He places reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajender Singh V. Lt. Governor Andman & Nicobar Island & others reported in AIR 2006 SC 75 to urge that a case for review is made out and the LPA must be set down for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. He places reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajender Singh V. Lt. Governor Andman & Nicobar Island & others reported in AIR 2006 SC 75 to urge that a case for review is made out and the LPA must be set down for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. Advocate Shri Kshirsagar has urged that the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the LPA No.171/2006 has looked into the challenge as presented to it and has considered the arguments advanced. The arguments advanced by the Disputant have been appropriately looked in and in review, it is not the contention of the disputant that any of its arguments have not been considered. In this light, he further invited our attention to application of mind in the said Judgment dated 12-9-2008 to urge that the important documents have been duly looked into. The disputant has relied upon only two documents i.e. Exh.D-12 & D-13 and respondent no.4 had relied upon a document Exh. D-19. These documents which formed very basis of dispute have been appropriately considered and after their comparative evaluation, a proper finding has been reached. The effort of disputant is now to invite this Court to reconsider that material again. All findings recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court revolve around those documents and as basic documents are already looked into, there is no scope for invoking review jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and pointed out its Para 8 to substantiate his contention. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the review application. 7. The Special Leave Petition filed by the disputant was dismissed in motion hearing. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not grant leave and as such, there is no question of merger of Judgment delivered by LPA Court with the order of Hon'ble Apex Court. Reference in this respect can be made to the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kunhayammed & others Vs. State of Kerala & another reported in AIR 2000 SC 2587 . The maintainability of review after such rejection by the Hon'ble Apex Court is also concluded in it. 8. The Judgment in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. State of Kerala & another reported in AIR 2000 SC 2587 . The maintainability of review after such rejection by the Hon'ble Apex Court is also concluded in it. 8. The Judgment in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (supra) relied upon by Advocate Shri Kshirsagar shows that there, issues had arisen out of a civil dispute. The plaintiff was the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The suit was decreed and the respondent - defendant then preferred appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, delivered a Judgment and held that the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration of title and confirmation of possession. His cross objection for partition was, however, rejected. The plaintiff then preferred second appeal in the High Court of Calcutta. It was allowed and the Hon'ble High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to partition. The respondent defendant thereafter filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, after adjudication in Second Appeal, a review petition was preferred. It is in this background that the Hon'ble Apex Court has in para 8 observed that the proceedings for review are not by way of appeal and must be strictly confined to scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule I of C.P.C. Earlier Judgment in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047 has been relied upon. The observations, however, show that when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of record, interference under order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is possible. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, however, cautioned that it cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. 9. The obligation of Appellate Court writing a Judgment of reversal are well known and reference can be made to Santosh Hajari vrs. Purushottam Tiwari reported in 200112) Mh.L.J. 786 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Such Court has to come in close quarters of the finding recorded by the Trial Court and then demonstrate how those findings are either erroneous or perverse. Here, as already noted by us above, so far as the Court competent to deliver the findings finally on facts is concerned, it was the Cooperative Appellate Court functioning under Section 97 read with Section 149 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Here, as already noted by us above, so far as the Court competent to deliver the findings finally on facts is concerned, it was the Cooperative Appellate Court functioning under Section 97 read with Section 149 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The findings delivered by that Court were in favour of present review applicant i.e. the original disputant. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.3525 of 2007 did not find any case for interference made out. The learned Single Judge has in paragraph no.6 noted that on facts, the Cooperative Appellate Court found that tenement no.23 was, in fact, allotted to the disputant. Learned Single Judge also noted that the defence of present respondent no.4 while opposing the dispute was that the allotment in favour of the disputant was cancelled by the Society's order dated 20-8-1990. The learned Single Judge in the light of this defence noted a finding by Cooperative Appellate Court that the order dated 20-8-1990 at Exh.D-19 was without any resolution of Society and issued without following due procedure. In the light of this defence and this material finding as recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. This finding was in effect questioned before the Division Bench in Letter Patent Appeal. Date: July 16.2013. The finding of learned Single Judge was in favour of disputant and concurring with the judgment of Cooperative Appellate Court. The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal on 12th September, 2008 has disagreed with the judgment of learned Single Judge only by observing that it sans reasons. 11. There is no mention of defence of respondent No.4 before learned Single Judge. Present Respondent No.4 was petitioner before learned Single Judge. There is no finding or consideration by the Division Bench of the perspective adopted by Single Judge. During the process of application of mind, while discussing the controversy in paragraph Nos. 7' and 8', it has also disagreed with the findings reached by Cooperative Appellate Court. Perusal of paragraph 7' and 8' of the judgment delivered by Division Bench, reveals that Cooperative Court, according to it, looked into two important circumstances. The first circumstance looked into by Cooperative Court was overwriting in respect of plot number on allotment letter in favour of disputant. Perusal of paragraph 7' and 8' of the judgment delivered by Division Bench, reveals that Cooperative Court, according to it, looked into two important circumstances. The first circumstance looked into by Cooperative Court was overwriting in respect of plot number on allotment letter in favour of disputant. The Division Bench has observed that Cooperative Court was right in holding that disputant could have examined the Secretary of Cooperative Housing Society, who had scored out original plot No. 50 and substituted it with plot No. 23. It was necessary for disputant to bring on record the circumstances under which it was done. The Division Bench then notices that contents of Exh. D-12 and D-13 revealed that it was plot No. 50. which was initially allotted to disputant and it was later on substituted by figure 23'. The Division Bench notices that the Appellate Court also holds accordingly but then the erasers were discarded by Appellate Court because of the fact that same were counter signed by Secretary. The Division Bench has not accepted this application of mind. The finding of Cooperative Court that resolution of society approving such change was not produced on record, is relied upon by Division Bench and it concluded that without resolution permitting change of number by society, the so called attestation by Secretary had no value. The Cooperative Appellate Court is therefore held to have fallen in error in this connection. 12. The second reason given by Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal is the order passed by President of the Society on 20th August, 1990 (Exh. D-19). The contents of said orders are perused to note that Plot No.23 was allotted to respondent No.4, and one Shri. G N. Thakre in order to oblige respondent No.4, assured him allotment of plot No. 23 and brought pressure on society to allot said plot to him. Obviously fact shows that the later reference to respondent No.4 in judgment of Division Bench needs to be read as 'reference to disputant'. The story pressed into service was; disputant happens to be relative of said Shri. Thakre and Thakre wanted to oblige disputant by allotting plot No. 23. Because of this interest of Shri. Thakre and his influence, plot No. 50 in document at D-12 and D-13 was altered to plot no. 23. The story pressed into service was; disputant happens to be relative of said Shri. Thakre and Thakre wanted to oblige disputant by allotting plot No. 23. Because of this interest of Shri. Thakre and his influence, plot No. 50 in document at D-12 and D-13 was altered to plot no. 23. The Division Bench has then noted that President of Society had ordered disputant to restore plot No. 23 back to appellant before it i.e. respondent No.4 before us. The Division Bench notices that this order is not only signed by President of Society but it is signed by Secretary also. Thus, Secretary is held to have endorsed the action of President and as Secretary has endorsed said action after letters at Exh. D-12 and 13, the Division Bench has found that his endorsement later in point of time deserved more credence. Thus, this document at Exh. D-19 is, therefore, held against present disputant. Only because of these two findings and application of mind, the judgment of Cooperative Appellate Court has been set aside and Letters Patent Appeal came to be allowed. 13. The contention of review applicant that these two findings ipso facto were not sufficient to set aside the judgment of the Cooperative Appellate Court, which is founded on other material also, now need consideration. The Cooperative Appellate Court has framed points for its determination. In paragraph' 12', points framed and its findings are reproduced below for convenience. Points Finding 1 Whether the original disputant has proved that he was allottee of tenement No. 23 with plot thereunder vide latter dtd.17/11/89 and further he was put in possession thereof by the society vide latter dtd. 16/12/89, against the payment of the property ? …In the affirmative. 2 Whether the Opp. No. 4 was allotted tenement No.23 to her by the society on 27/11/89, and that she was put in possession thereof as alleged …In the negative. 3 What is the effect of sale deed executed by society in favour of Opp. No. 4 during the pendency of the suit with respect to tenement No. 23? …The sale deed is void asinitio & does not affect the right of the Disputant to have the Tenement No. 23 and its Sale deed. 4 Whether the disputant is entitled to restoration & possession of tenement No. 3 along with the plot from Opp. No. 4 during the pendency of the suit with respect to tenement No. 23? …The sale deed is void asinitio & does not affect the right of the Disputant to have the Tenement No. 23 and its Sale deed. 4 Whether the disputant is entitled to restoration & possession of tenement No. 3 along with the plot from Opp. No. 4 and also sale deed from the society? …In the affirmative. 5 Whether the finding as well as judgment and order recorded by the learned Trial Judge disclosed error, irregularity & illegal and deserves interference ? …In the affirmative. As such judgment deserved to be quashed and set aside. 6 To what relief, the appellant is entitled? …Appellant is entitled to sale deed of tenement No. 23 to restoration and possession therof from respondent Nos.1 and 4. 7 What order …As per order below It has to be noted that, at this stage, we are not recording any finding on correctness or otherwise of said application of mind or about conclusions reached by the Cooperative Appellate Court. 14. The Cooperative Appellate Court in paragraph' 13' onwards up to paragraph' IT, considered point Nos. 1 and 2. We mention some of the important findings reached by Cooperative Appellate Court in the process of its appreciation of the controversy. In paragraph' 13', it has noted that payment of money by disputant to Cooperative Society was supported by a share certificate while payments made by respondent No.4 were not supported by any such certificate. In paragraph' 14', it has also looked into absence of resolution on record in favour of disputant but then remarked that society remained ex-parte before trial Court and this established the fact that Society did not challenge the allotment of house No. 23 in favour of the disputant. It held that the assertions of disputant in this respect remained unchallenged. It also, therefore, presumed that office bearers of society have implemented the resolution of society by issuing letters at Exh.D-12 and D-13. 15. Second finding by Cooperative Appellate Court against respondent No.4 as recorded in paragraph' 13' is that, the respondent No. 4 though claimed it to be member of society, he could not produce any share certificate or any other evidence to substantiate that contention. 15. Second finding by Cooperative Appellate Court against respondent No.4 as recorded in paragraph' 13' is that, the respondent No. 4 though claimed it to be member of society, he could not produce any share certificate or any other evidence to substantiate that contention. It also held that there was no evidence on behalf of said respondent to show any allotment letter issued to her at any point of time. It noted that in written statement, respondent No.4 claimed that plot no. 23 was allotted to her on 27th November, 1989 and possession was given on 28th November, 1989. However, after appreciating evidence on record, it recorded a finding that falsehood in this respect stood established on record before it. It has concluded at the end of paragraph' 13' that disputant came in possession of house No. 23 on 16th December, 1989 only and since then, she was enjoying it till it was dispossessed by respondent No.4 by taking law in her hands. 16. In paragraph 14', the Appellate Court appreciated documents D-12 and D-13 and held that those documents established the fact that possession was not at all given to respondent No.4 till order was passed on 20th August, 1990. It then concluded that her possession after 20th August, 1990 therefore could have only been looked into. It again reiterated the plea in written statement in this respect, absence of letter of allotment and absence of any other document to prove that disputant had handed over possession to respondent No.4 after 20th August, 1990. The Appellate Court then looks into the story of disputant that he was dispossessed on 23rd June, 1991 and looks into his police complaint at Exh. 17. However, it then mentions that said police complaint is dated 2nd October, 1990. It has then concluded that on over all consideration of evidence on record, the story of respondent No.4 about allotment of plot No. 23 and handing over possession to her by society, stood falsified. 17. The finding of Appellate Court on erasers in Exh. D-12, D-13, Exh. D-19 are in paragraph 14. It has reproduced arguments of Advocate Deshpande, who appeared for respondent No.4 and then the arguments of Advocate Badhe, who appeared for present disputant before it. 17. The finding of Appellate Court on erasers in Exh. D-12, D-13, Exh. D-19 are in paragraph 14. It has reproduced arguments of Advocate Deshpande, who appeared for respondent No.4 and then the arguments of Advocate Badhe, who appeared for present disputant before it. It accepted that there were alterations in documents at D-12 and D-13 and also held that signature of Secretary attesting those alterations were accepted by respondent No.4 in cross-examination. It also found that the respondent No.4 never pleaded that disputant himself has done those alterations. It, therefore, inferred that there was some mistake while putting plot number in those documents and that those mistakes or errors were corrected by Secretary. It then found that Society did not appear before it to challenge those documents and Society therefore accepted the documents at Exh. D-12 and D-13. It is in this backdrop that it considered the document at D-19 dated 20th August, 1990. It has found that the story as narrated therein again revealed that even at the time of passing of that order, the Society accepted that tenement No.23 was allotted to the disputant. The Appellate Court found that order dated 20th August, 1990 discloses the alleged pressure of Shri. G N. Thakre, but then it places reliance upon said document to draw various conclusions which we have already noted above. 18. In paragraph' 15', it has looked into the challenged document D-19 independently and found it unsustainable as it was termed in breach of principles of natural justice i.e. without giving any opportunity to disputant before cance1ling allotment of house No. 23 and before ordering his dispossession from it. 19. In paragraph 16, it has then looked into the evidence of power of attorney of respondent No. 4 and at the end of that paragraph, it has observed that said evidence given by witness was not as an independent witness but as an attorney and found it inadmissible. Its conclusion in paragraph' 17' shows that because of whatever it felt earlier, it (Appellate Court) concluded that Plot No. 23 was allotted to disputant and it was not allotted to respondent No.4 and its possession was never given to respondent No.4. Because of this consideration, it has answered point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 in negative. Its conclusion in paragraph' 17' shows that because of whatever it felt earlier, it (Appellate Court) concluded that Plot No. 23 was allotted to disputant and it was not allotted to respondent No.4 and its possession was never given to respondent No.4. Because of this consideration, it has answered point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 in negative. In paragraph' 12', while answering point No.4, it held that disputant was allotted plot No. 23 and therefore he was entitled sale deed thereof. Lis pendence sale was ignored by Cooperative Appellate Court. 20. As already stated by us above, we are not in any way endorsing the correctness of any of these findings recorded by Cooperative Appellate Court. We only find that Cooperative Appellate Court had assigned cogent reasons for recording its findings on facts. Those findings were questioned by respondent No. 4 in a writ petition before learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has, thereafter, disposed of petition by an order dated 31st October, 2007. Various points i.e. issues framed by Cooperative Appellate Court and its consideration of each point is independent and distinct. The perusal of dispute as filed before Cooperative Court reveals that apart from his entitlement to declaration as an allottee of suit tenement No. 23, the disputant had also claimed restoration of possession over it. He has also challenged the cancellation of allotment by order dated 20.5.1990 and in the alternate, he had also prayed for an amount of Rs. 2,00,941/-. It included claim of Rs. 1,30,000/- towards damages. 21. It is, therefore, apparent that merely by appreciating documents at D-12, D-13 and D-19 together, this Court could not have set aside the entire exercise noted by us above undertaken by the Cooperative Appellate Court. The facts looked into by Cooperative Appellate Court also needed appreciation and documents also warranted evaluation in the light of oral evidence and other material on record. Merely by comparing three documents, an inference to the contrary and to discredit the said application of mind by Cooperative Appellate Court could not have been reached. 22. The learned Counsel for respondent No.4 has urged that this Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment and the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as a substitute for appellate judgment. Merely by comparing three documents, an inference to the contrary and to discredit the said application of mind by Cooperative Appellate Court could not have been reached. 22. The learned Counsel for respondent No.4 has urged that this Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment and the review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as a substitute for appellate judgment. In Sant Lal Gupta and others Versus Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 , the Hon. Apex Court has pointed out that an error apparent on the face of record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need a long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. Such error may include the giving of reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. It may also include the application of a wrong legal test to the facts found, taking irrelevant considerations into account and failing to take relevant considerations into ac count, and wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence, as well as arriving at a conclusion without any supporting evidence. The perusal of judgment of Cooperative Appellate Court, points for determination & findings recorded therein and then judgment delivered by learned Single Judge along with the impugned judgment dated 12th September, 2008 delivered by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal, clearly shows failure of this Court to take into account the considerations, both factual & legal, relevant for exercise of the appellate jurisdiction as also omission to consider the impact or validity of material findings recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court, resulting into an error apparent on face of record. Merely by referring to three documents, all the conclusions and findings recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court substantiated by it on the basis of material on record, could not have been set aside & have not, in fact, been set aside. Failure to look into entire material on record & not coming in close quarter of the findings on facts recorded by the Cooperative Appellate Court or then application of mind in writ jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge, is nothing but an error apparent. We, therefore, hold that judgment dated 12th September, 2008 suffers from an error apparent on face of record. 23. We, therefore, hold that judgment dated 12th September, 2008 suffers from an error apparent on face of record. 23. Accordingly, same is set aside. With the result Letters Patent Appeal No. 171 of 2008 is restored back to file of this Court for its due consideration in accordance with law. 24. Misc. Civil Application is allowed accordingly. However, in the circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.