Mansoor. J.:- Challenging the judgment and order of learned writ court in SWP No. 1300/2006 dated 12th December, 2007, a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 121/2008, had been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 24th March, 2009, which is sought to be reviewed by the applicant/ appellant by the instant Review Petition. 2. Respondents 1-3 & 8 and 9 have filed objections and resisted the petition. Counsel for respondents 5 to 7 adopted the reply filed by respondents 1 to 3 & 8. 3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that there are some errors and mistakes apparent on record which warrant exercise of powers in terms of Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short as CPC. 4. Review petition in hand seeks consideration of nothing but the fact of post, having been created for Ward No. 12 and not for Sarnal Bala, Anantnag, as has, contended to be, mistakenly held in judgment dated 12th December, 2007 passed in SWP No. 1300/2006 and in judgment under review dated 24th March, 2009. It being so, the mistake is argued to be apparent on the face of record and a review, therefore, is inevitable. 5. To appreciate the matrix of the petition in hand, the origin of the controversy need to be understood therefore account of events, in brief, is stated, thus: 6. Selection for the post of 3rd Teacher under Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme was made for a school sanctioned for Ward No. 12 Sarnal Bala, Anantnag and respondent No. 9, in LPA No. 121/2008, had been selected. Against the said selection appellant filed a writ petition that she does not belong to the area for which school was sanctioned. A direction was issued in the said writ petition in the name of Deputy Commissioner concerned to ascertain the residential particulars of selected candidate and issue orders thereon. 7. Thereafter Deputy Commissioner concerned submitted his report and found respondent No. 9, on the basis of her residential particulars, to be ineligible for the post which was challenged by respondent No. 9 by virtue of another writ petition being SWP No. 1300/2006. The writ petition was disposed of and the matter was sent afresh to the concerned Deputy Commissioner for examining the matter.
The writ petition was disposed of and the matter was sent afresh to the concerned Deputy Commissioner for examining the matter. Against this direction, the appellant filed an appeal being LPA No. 4 of 2008 which was disposed of with the request to learned writ court to decide the matter on merits. 8. The learned writ court thereafter decided the writ petition in favour of petitioner, respondent No. 9 in appeal. Against the said order the appeal was preferred by the applicant/ appellant which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. 9. Learned Counsel representing respondent No. 9, in appeal, submitted that respondent No. 9 is in position since long and she has unnecessarily been kept busy in litigation. 10. We have examined the matter and gone through the judgment dated 24th March, 2009. The impugned judgment has discussed the facts and deliberated upon merits of the case extensively, therefore, the contention that mistake is apparent on the face of record is imaginary and does not necessitate the review. 11. Let us take a look at Rule 1 of Order XLVII of CPC, thus: "1. Application for review of judgment (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. 12. It is beaten law of the land that power of review is to be exercised in limited circumstances and that too as per the mandate of Order XLVII CPC. The remedy available in the shape of review cannot be allowed to be a masquerade appeal. 13. Apex Court in case titled Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mawasi & Ors.
The remedy available in the shape of review cannot be allowed to be a masquerade appeal. 13. Apex Court in case titled Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mawasi & Ors. reported as AIR SCW 2012, 4222, has made elaborate discussion and has referred to all the judgments on the subject right from 1950 till judgment is rendered. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 16 and 17 herein: 16. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 , P.P. Sethi, J., who concurred with S. Saghir Ahmad, J., summarised the scope of the power of review in the following words (Para 15): "Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised." 17. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78 , the Court observed: "The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this Us, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict." 14. Reliance can also be placed on a case law titled M/s. Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported as AIR SCW 2006, 3592. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 11 herein: "11.
Reliance can also be placed on a case law titled M/s. Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported as AIR SCW 2006, 3592. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 11 herein: "11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases." 15. The identical issue was raised before the Apex Court in case titled Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, reported as AIR 1995, SC 455. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 8 of the same herein: "8. 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 I, 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 to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharmal, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: "It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab2, 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.
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; it 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." Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale3 wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: 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.
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. We have otherwise examined the controversy and we do not find any mistake apparent on the face of record which requires correction. The petition in hand has been argued in such a way as if an appeal had to be argued and adjudicated upon. 17. We are, in the circumstances, of the considered view that review petition is not pennyworth even to record our agreement with the contentions so raised in its support. Rather we feel that appellant has made the private respondent to run from pillar to post and from post to pillar for no good reasons. 18. Summing up the above narration we dismiss the review petition as merit-less. 19. Return the record. ___________