JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). These petitions for review under Order 47' Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure' 1908 (in short' 'CPC') have been filed by the petitioners' Smt. Manju Mamik' Sh. Karan Mamik and Smt. Reema Singh' who were the appellants before this court in RSA No.460 of 2010' Smt. Manju Mamik and others vs. Smt. Harjeet Kaur and others and RSA No.461 of 2010' Smt. Manju Mamik vs. Sh. Prithvi Jit Singh and others' decided by this court by a common judgment dated 25.4.2013. For the sake of convenience' it shall be appropriate to mention that the petitioners were defendants No.1 to 3 in the learned trial court. 2. It shall be appropriate to state at the very outset that in addition to Order 47' Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC' the petitioners have also pressed into service Section 114 CPC at the time of hearing arguments in the review petitions. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 4. Section 114 CPC reads as under:- "114. Review- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved,- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit". 5. Order 47' Rule 1 CPC is to the following effect:- "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. 5. Order 47' Rule 1 CPC is to the following effect:- "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 other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review". 6. On the scope of power of review' the petitioners have relied upon the following authorities:- (1) S. Thilagavathy vs. State of Tamil Nadu' 2011(6) SCC 365 . (2) Collector of 24 Parganas and others vs. Lalith Mohan Mullick and others' 1988 AIR (SC) 2121. (3) Nehali Panjiyara and others vs. Shyama Devi and others' 2002(10) SCC 578 . (4) Moran Mar Basselios Chatholicos and another vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others' 1954 AIR (SC) 526. (5) N. D Co-op Transport Socy vs. Beli Ram etc.' 1981 AIR (H.P.) 1. (6) State of West Bengal and others vs. Kamal Sengupta and another' (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612. (7) Usha Bharti vs. State of U.P. and others' Civil Appeal No@@@.. of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No.22035 of 2013. 7. Per Contra' reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents on the scope of power of review on the following authorities:- (1) Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector, District Gwalior and others, 2013 (2) R.A.J. 89. (7) Usha Bharti vs. State of U.P. and others' Civil Appeal No@@@.. of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No.22035 of 2013. 7. Per Contra' reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents on the scope of power of review on the following authorities:- (1) Cine Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector, District Gwalior and others, 2013 (2) R.A.J. 89. (2) Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others' 2013 (5) R.A.J. 62 and AIR 2013 (SC) 3301 . (3) S. Bhagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission' 2008 (1) RCR (Rent) 16. (4) Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and others' 2006 AIR (SC) 1634. (5) Aizaz Alam vs. Union of India and others' 2006(5) AD (Delhi) 297. (6) Jayalakshmi Coelho vs. Oswald Joseph Coelho' 2001 (4) SCC 181 . (7) Sumer vs. State of U.P. 2005 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 151. (8) Md. Ashraf Ali vs. Debraj Wadhera' 1995 (Sup2) SCC 654. (9) Lily Thomas vs. Union of India' 2000 (6) SCC 224 . (10) Kishore Samrite vs. State of M.P. ' 2014 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 977. (11) Chitra Kumari vs. Union of India' 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 445. 8. (8) Md. Ashraf Ali vs. Debraj Wadhera' 1995 (Sup2) SCC 654. (9) Lily Thomas vs. Union of India' 2000 (6) SCC 224 . (10) Kishore Samrite vs. State of M.P. ' 2014 (1) R. C. R. (Criminal) 977. (11) Chitra Kumari vs. Union of India' 2001 (1) R.C.R. (Rent) 445. 8. The petitioners have raised the following points in support of their prayer for review of the judgment:- (1) that the suit culminating in the present proceedings as filed was barred by time; (2) substantial question of law No. VIII was not dealt with; (3) additional substantial question of law No. VII read with issue No.8 framed by the learned trial court' has also not been dealt with in the common judgment; (4) additional substantial questions of law No. V and VII regarding illegal transposition of plaintiff No.2' Prithvi Jit Singh' as one of the defendants and the suit being mala fide and further that there was variance between the pleading and proof on behalf of the plaintiffs' which though were sought to be formulated' but the prayer in that regard was declined; (5) though emphasis was not laid on codicil' yet that aspect of the matter has also not been dealt with in the judgment; (6) While dealing with substantial question of law No. X' the court instead of strictly adhering to the principles of law governing appreciation of evidence to prove a will has instead tried to balance the equities between the parties; (7) The findings on substantial question of law No. XVI regarding the suit being bad for want of consequential relief of possession; and lastly (8) That compromise Ext.D-4' dated 30.11.1999' was not challenged by the plaintiffs or for that matter by defendant' Prithvi Jit Singh at any stage. 9. On the other hand' the judgment is supported by the other side. 10. Before proceeding further' it shall be relevant to notice three situations comprehended by the Legislature' in which a decree or order or decision can be reviewed. These are:- (i) 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; (ii) or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii) or for any other sufficient reasons". 11. 11. Admittedly' in the present case' the first situation has not been pressed into service by the petitioners and they are relying only on the other two situations. 12. I have taken into consideration the judgments relied upon on behalf of the parties and noted the principles of law enunciated therein and the same shall be referred to wherever necessary. 13. Apart from other judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioners' they are heavily relying upon an unreported latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha Bharti vs. State of U.P. and others' (Civil Appeal No@@@.. of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No.22035 of 2013 and the connected matters)' wherein while laying down that the scope of review petition is quite wide' it was held as under vide paras 62 and 63 of the judgment:- "62. We have no hesitation in accepting the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the High Court or this Court, in exercise of its powers of review can reopen the case and rehear the entire matter. But we must hasten to add that whilst exercising such power the court cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC as well as the rules framed by the High Courts and this Court. The limits within which the Courts can exercise the powers of review have been well settled in a catena of judgments. All the judgments have in fact been considered by the High Court in Pages 16 to 23. The High Court has also considered the judgment in S. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. (supra), which reiterates the principle that "19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice ft 63. These principles are far too well entrenched in the Indian jurisprudence, to warrant reiteration. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice ft 63. These principles are far too well entrenched in the Indian jurisprudence, to warrant reiteration. However, for the sake of completion, we may notice that Mr. Bhushan had relied upon Board of Control for Cricket in India v/s Netaji Cricket Club (supra), and Green View Tea & Industries (supra). It would be useful to reiterate the following excerpts: In the Case of Board of Control for Cricket in India (supra), it was observed that: "90 Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefore. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words "sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit". This court in Green View Tea & Industries (supra) reiterated the view adopted by it in S. Nagaraj & Ors (supra). Therefore, the ratio of Green View tea is not applicable in this case". 14. Conversely' the judgments qua scope of review relied upon on behalf of the other side apart' they have also laid emphasis on two latest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayavati and others, AIR 2013 (SC) 3301 ' wherein it has been laid down as under vide para 16 of the report:- "16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of the due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 , to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 436: JT 2013 (8) SC 275. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived". 15. The other judgment relied upon is reported as Kishore Samrite vs. State of M.P. 2014(1) R. C. R. (Crminal) 977' which lays down as under vide paras 9 and 10 of the report:- "9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the grounds urged by the petitioner for review of the order lacks bona fide and his attempt is to seek review of the order by resorting to untenable and malafide grounds. He seems to be in the habit of making false and wild allegations. 10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present review petition and dismiss it with costs of Z 5 ,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund. He seems to be in the habit of making false and wild allegations. 10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present review petition and dismiss it with costs of Z 5 ,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund. The petitioner shall deposit the aforesaid amount within one month from the date of this order. If he fails to do the same within the time stipulated, the Registry of this Court shall inform to the District Magistrate, Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh), to recover the said amount from the petitioner as an arrears of land revenue and deposit the said amount in the Supreme Court Employees Welfare Fund without any delay". 16. While addressing arguments on the prayer for review' the learned counsel for the petitioners has virtually taken me through almost the entire material evidence led in the trial court' as also the submissions made at the time of hearing the appeals out of which the present review petitions arise' as also the common judgment dated 25.4.2013' which is sought to be reviewed. 17. The points on which the review petitions have been filed stand already noticed. These have been dealt with in quite detail in the common judgment dated 25.4.2013' starting from para 18 to the penultimate para 66 thereof. Virtually' all the points raised by the review petitioners have been dealt in the common judgment dated 25.4.2013 comprehensively along with supporting reasoning. As far as substantial questions of law No.V and VII and un-numbered substantial question of law regarding variance between pleading and proof are concerned' the same were declined for the reasons stated vide para 66 of the judgment. 18. Findings on limitation; appreciation of evidence qua the disputed Wills coupled with issue No.8 framed by the learned trial court; codicil; non-claiming of relief of possession etc. etc.' are based on supporting reasoning contained in the relevant part of the judgment referred to hereinabove. 19. This court is not oblivious of the fact that "to err is human". Though it is not specifically recited in the review petitions that common judgment dated 25.4.2013' which is sought to be reviewed in these petitions' has not been appealed against at the instance of the review petitioners in the Hon'ble Apex Court' yet it is stated at the bar by their learned counsel that no such appeal has in fact been filed. It being so' common judgment dated 25.4.2013 would always be subject to the scrutiny to the Hon'ble Apex Court. In such circumstances' though this court has tried to advert to almost all the material aspects of the case both in the common judgment and to the required limited extent in this judgment' yet even if it is found that this court has faulted on any legal or factual aspect of the matter' such error of judgment of law or fact shall always be subject to the scrutiny of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that some judgments cited at the bar during hearing of the appeals have not been referred in the common judgment dated 25.4.2013. In this regard' suffice it to say that it is not incumbent upon the court to do so and more so when the principles laid down in those judgments are taken into consideration and applied in the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. In view of the above' the review petitions' which do not disclose any lawful ground for review' are dismissed being sans any merit' whatsoever. However' I refrain myself from burdening the review petitioners with costs' for that matter exemplary costs as the other side beseeches this court. 22. Credit goes to Mr. Ashish Aggarwal' learned senior counsel for the petitioners' who has pointed out with due dexterity the inadvertent mistakes' which have crept into the common judgment dated 25.4.2013' in para 36 at page 23' second line' para 37 at page 23' fourth and fifth lines and para 39 at page 23' second last line' wherein word "defendants" has appeared in place of "plaintiffs" and their Nos. have also been mentioned wrongly and words "herein" and "therein" have been used interchangeably. These being in the nature of "clerical or arithmetical mistakes/errors" arising out of any accidental slip or omission' are liable to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 152 CPC. Ordered accordingly. have also been mentioned wrongly and words "herein" and "therein" have been used interchangeably. These being in the nature of "clerical or arithmetical mistakes/errors" arising out of any accidental slip or omission' are liable to be corrected in exercise of powers under Section 152 CPC. Ordered accordingly. Consequently' in the common judgment dated 25.4.2013' in para 36 at page 23' second line' para 37 at page 23' fourth and fifth lines and para 39 at page 23' second last line' the following words' respectively' shall be substituted: - para 36 at page 23' second line' "plaintiffs"; para 37 at page 23' fourth line' "therein" and fifth line' "plaintiffs No.1 to 4"; and para 39 at page 23' second last line' "plaintiffs No.1 to 4". 23. The Registry is directed to carry out the corrections' as above. 24. The review petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. As a result' all interim orders shall also vacated.