ORDER : AJAY RASTOGI, J. Instant review petition has been filed for recalling of the order dt.27-3-2012. 2. It reveals from the record that after disposal of the writ petition vide order dt.27-3-2012 special appeal came to be preferred by the review petitioner, D.B Special Appeal (W) No. 1027/2012 in CWP-3239/2012 and that came to be dismissed on 25-9-2012. 3. Counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw the special appeal with liberty to file review application with the prayer that the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to title of the subject plots in question since no order was passed by this Court, liberty was granted to the review petitioner as reveals from the order dt.25-9-2012 the present review application has been preferred by him. 4. Sh. Manish Sharma Adv., appearing for the review petitioner submits that there are certain factual statements recorded by this Court which needs to be revisited for the reason that the person (Krishna Kumari) from whom it is claimed that patta was transferred in the name of respondent no. 3 on 19-3-1997 & 10-4-1997, the facts is that Krishna Kumari who was the originally allottee expired in 10-6-1994 as such any allotment in furtherance thereof on behalf of the original allottee appears to be a forged document and that is the reason for which the present review petition has been filed. 5. This Court has taken note of the factual matrix and the award was passed by the Arbitrator and the appeal filed against award of the Arbitrator u/S.75 of the Act, 1965 being decided and was of the view that the proceedings before the Civil Court are pending and still to be examined on merits in regard to possession of the subject plot in question, the rights of either party may not be influenced by the observations, and the civil court may decide the matter independently on the basis of the material on record in accordance with law. 6. What is being urged by the counsel for the review petitioner is for the Civil Court to consider on the basis of the material on record and in my considered view what is being urged before this Court is not sufficient to hold that there is an apparent error on the face of record which may be considered for recalling the order dt.27-3-2012. 7. 7. After hearing counsel for the review petitioner, this Court finds no substance in the review petition. 8. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed.