JUDGMENT RAGHUBIR DASH, J. 1. This Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. is in respect of the judgment dated 11.10.2002 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 143 of 1993. 2. The petitioner is the appellant, O.P. No.2 series are the L.Rs. of the deceased Respondent No.2 and O.P. No.1, the State of Orissa, is Respondent No.1 in the Second Appeal. 3. Respondent No.2, late Sambhu Prasad Hota, filed the suit for a decree for recovery of possession of a piece of land measuring 0.115 decimal appertaining to Plot No. 2488/48 situate in Ward No. 10 of Bolangir Municipality claiming that he got it on lease in Revenue Case No. 16/39 of 1963-64 alleging that the State Government could not give delivery of possession of the land as it was found to be in the possession of Defendant No.2. 4. D.2 filed W.S. claiming, inter alia, that he has no idea about any settlement in favour of the plaintiff and what is the piece of land in respect of which the alleged settlement has been made. But so far the land under his possession is concerned his vendor Ganeshram Sahoo, the recorded owner of Plot No. 2483/9 of holding No. 68 of Bolangir Nazul had transferred 1000 sq. ft. of land marked as 2483/9/A with houses standing thereon under a registered sale deed executed in February, 1965 and after taking over possession thereof, D.2 has mutated the land in his name and has been in possession thereof along with some adjoining Government land which is being used by him as his backyard. D.2 also took an alternative plea stating that if the suit land is found to be in his possession then he has acquired title there-over by way of adverse possession. Learned trial court decreed the suit allowing plaintiff’s prayer for damages but refused to grant the main relief, i.e. recovery of possession, observing that the plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the land claimed by him to be in forcible possession of the defendant. Learned lower appellate court also recorded a finding that there is no acceptable evidence from the side of the plaintiff to show that Defendant No.2 was in possession of the suit property as stated by the plaintiff. Learned lower appellate court also recorded a finding that there is no acceptable evidence from the side of the plaintiff to show that Defendant No.2 was in possession of the suit property as stated by the plaintiff. However, observing, inter alia, that Defendant No.2 has admitted the plaintiff’s title over the suit land by asserting that he (Defendant No.2) has acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, but the period of such possession falling short of the statutory period, allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff’s suit against Defendant No.2 directing recovery of possession. 5. The review of the impugned judgment is sought for on the sole ground that the observation made in the last part of paragraph No.8 of the impugned judgment that the Defendant No.2 has admitted in his written statement that he has been in forcible possession over the suit land and that learned both the Courts below have completely ignored such admission and thereby erroneously held that defendant No.2 was not in possession of the suit land is a mistake on the face of record. This, according to the Review-petitioner, is as a result of misrepresentation of the pleadings of Defendant No.2 inasmuch as no where in the written statement D.2 has admitted his possession over the disputed land. Rather, it is submitted, throughout the pleadings the consistent stand taken by D.2 is that the suit land is not specific and that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant is, in fact, in possession of the suit land which the plaintiff claims to have got on lease in Revenue Case No. 16/39 of 1963-64. Defendant No.2, it is further submitted, has taken an alternative plea claiming that if at all the suit land or any part thereof is found to be in his possession then he has acquired title over it by way of adverse possession. 6. On a perusal of the written statement the submission made by the learned counsel for the review-petitioner that nowhere D-2 admitted that he has been in forcible possession over the suit land is found to be correct. Rather, pleadings in the written statement reveal that the defendants’ defence is based on alleged lack of identity or improper description of the suit land. Rather, pleadings in the written statement reveal that the defendants’ defence is based on alleged lack of identity or improper description of the suit land. The defendant has put the burden on the plaintiff to connect the land he claims to have got on lease with the land he (D-2) has been in possession. No doubt he admits that together with his purchased land he is also in possession of a piece of government land adjoining to his purchased land. But, he does not admit that the piece of government land under his possession is the suit land. He has taken the stand that he himself has no idea if he is in possession of the suit land or any portion thereof and that the plaintiff having not supplied any map in respect of the suit land he does not know if he is in possession of the suit land. D-2 reserved his right to file additional W.S. on the event a map of the suit land was supplied to him. However, in the alternative, D-2 has taken the stand that if the Court finds that he is in possession of the suit land then since he has been in possession of the suit site for more than the statutory period, he has acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. 7. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether the learned lower appellate court committed any error of record so far as identity of the suit land is concerned? (ii) Whether the learned lower appellate court is justified by directing recovery of possession of the suit land from the appellant in absence of any evidence to the effect that the land in possession of the appellant is the suit land? It is seen that both the questions are on the proper identification of the suit land. 8. While disposing of the Second Appeal vide impugned judgment dated 11.10.2002, this Court dismissed the appeal with observation that in the written statement the defendant has admitted his possession over the disputed land but the learned courts below appear to have completely ignored such admission in the W.S. of D-2 and erroneously the courts below have held that defendant No.2 is not proved to be in possession of the suit land. 9. 9. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner submits that when there is no admission in the W.S. that D-2 has been in possession of the suit land the observation of this Court that D-2 has made such admission in his W.S. is an error apparent on the face of record and such finding is based on misrepresentation of pleadings contained in the written statement of D-2/review-petitioner. On a reading of the written statement in its entirety it cannot be said that D-2 has admitted that he has been in possession of the suit land, i.e., the land measuring 0.115 decimal appertaining to plot No. 2488/48 in Ward No. 10 of Bolangir Municipality in respect of which lease has been granted in his favour in Revenue Case No. 16/39 of 1963-64. The consistent stand taken by D-2 is that description of the suit property made in the plaint is quite insufficient to identify the suit land and though he (D-2) has been unauthorizedly possessing a piece of government land adjoining to his purchased land, the same could not be correlated with the land appertaining to plot No. 2488/48 and if at all it is found by the court that the land appertaining to plot No. 2488/48 corresponds to the land which is under unauthorized occupation of D-2, then he has perfected his title over that piece of land by way of adverse possession. In fact both the courts below have found that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit land appertaining to plot No. 2488/48. Therefore, the Review-petitioner has raised a sustainable contention that aforestated observation of this Court in the impugned judgment on the alleged admission in the W.S. is an error apparent on the face of record. 10. In Board of Control for Cricket, India vs. Netaji Cricket Club, AIR 2005 SC 592 it is observed that Order 47, R.1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review which would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. Furthermore, referring to Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224 law laid down in that case has been extracted as follows: “Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.” 11. In Civil Appeal No. 4584 of 2009 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19736 of 2006 (a printed copy down loaded from the website http://indiankanoon.org is filed) it is observed that power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But that error must be such which strikes one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may be conceivable two opinions. Some more decisions have been cited by the learned counsels but the principle laid down in those decisions are on the scope and ambit of the power of review under Order 47, R.1, C.P.C. over which there is no difference of opinion. Therefore, those are not referred herein to lengthen the order unnecessary. 12. In the case in hand, it is found from the pleadings in the W.S. that D-2 has never made any admission that he has been in possession of the suit land. But, the impugned judgment has been passed by this Court solely on the misconception that there is such an admission in the pleadings of D-2 which has completely been ignored by the learned courts below. The Second Appeal has been dismissed solely on this erroneous assumption. This is a mistake on the part of the Court as well as an error apparent on the face of the record which, if allowed to continue, shall result in miscarriage of justice. 13. In view of the discussion made above, the application for review is allowed on contest but in the facts and circumstances without cost. 14. Since the dismissal of the Second Appeal is solely based on the said erroneous finding, the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2002 passed in the Second Appeal No. 143 of 1993 by this Court is set aside. 13. In view of the discussion made above, the application for review is allowed on contest but in the facts and circumstances without cost. 14. Since the dismissal of the Second Appeal is solely based on the said erroneous finding, the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2002 passed in the Second Appeal No. 143 of 1993 by this Court is set aside. Registry to make necessary noting in the register concerned. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial court/executing court.