JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Present Sri Saroj Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri D.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.K. Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri K.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. Heard and perused the records. 2. Original Suit No. 368/1998, Pratap Singh vs. Smt. Ramwati & Others, was filed by the plaintiff (appellant/ applicant of review application) for relief of permanent injunction relating to disputed shop. After hearing, the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ist, Aligarh, had decreed the suit of plaintiff and defendant no.-1 was directed not to dispossess the plaintiff from disputed shop otherwise than in accordance with law. In this judgment the trial court had held that plaintiff is trespasser, but he could not be evicted from the property in question otherwise than in accordance with law. 3. Aggrieved by said judgment of trial court Civil Appeal no. 104 of 2003, Pratap Singh vs. Smt. Ramwati & Others, was preferred, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 18.02.2015 of Additional District Judge, Aligarh. In this judgment at the time of giving direction of dismissal of appeal, the first appellate court had also directed that the plaintiff-appellant shall not damage or change the status of disputed shop and shall not cause any interference in coming and going of defendant no.-1, who resides at first floor of the said shop. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court as well as first appellate court, the second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff of the original suit. 4. At the time of hearing on the point of admission of Second Appeal, counsel for the both the parties were present. After hearing them, this Court had found that finding of trial court as well as lower appellate court were correct. This Court had also found that status of plaintiff/appellant (present applicant) was that of trespasser in the disputed shop and defendant no.-1 is owner of said shop. This Court had found the ownership of wife of defendant no.-1 over disputed shop and held the plaintiff-appellant trespasser. After hearing, this Court had found that the only dispute between the parties is was to whether plaintiff/ appellant has any right of ownership in dispute or not; which is not a question of law much less of substantial question of law. After hearing, this Court had found that the only dispute between the parties is was to whether plaintiff/ appellant has any right of ownership in dispute or not; which is not a question of law much less of substantial question of law. This Court has held that it is a question that could be decided by the lower court as has been done by it. So far as the additional direction given by first appellate court, this Court had held that it is not prejudicial to the rights of plaintiff/appellant and said direction is correct. Finding no reason to interfere in judgments of lower courts by re-appreciation of evidences in Second Appeal and finding of the absence of any substantial question of law, said appeal was dismissed by this Court. 5. This review application has been moved for recalling the aforesaid order dated 1.3.2016 passed by this Court on merits. 6. Aat the time of hearing counsel for the applicant/appellant could not point any error apparent on the face of record. No reason required for exercising power of review under Order XLVII CPC, which was pleaded or placed before this Court by counsel for the applicant/appellant, who submitted that appellant is joint owner of disputed property relating to joint Hindu family. The matter relating to ownership or joint ownership has already been decided by trial court as well as first appellate court; and after hearing the parties, specific finding has already been given by this Court also in this regard in its judgment dated 1.3.2016. There appears error apparent on the face of record in order in question dated 1.3.2016 that may require exercise of power of review. 7. This Court had found that no substantial question of law is involved in the matter, therefore, appeal was dismissed. Said point was not even challenged during argument. This review application is an appeal in disguise against the impugned judgment of this court. Such application is not maintainable. 8. There has been concurrent finding of fact regarding point being raised in this review petition. This point has been specifically dealt with by the three courts with concurrent finding and judgment in this regard has been consciously given without any inadvertence or error. Such application is not maintainable. 8. There has been concurrent finding of fact regarding point being raised in this review petition. This point has been specifically dealt with by the three courts with concurrent finding and judgment in this regard has been consciously given without any inadvertence or error. The knowingly passed judgment on such facts, which suffers from no error apparent on face of record, or any legal or factual error, cannot be interfered in exercise of jurisdiction of review under Order XLVII CPC. 9. In view of above, this review application is dismissed. 10. This review application appears to be only misuse of process of court. Due to this review application, time and energy of this Court has been unnecessarily waste. Considering the baseless application for misuse of process of Court, the applicant/appellant was found liable to pay special cost. But his counsel, who is not senior, pleaded mercy and promised not to misuse process of Court and law in future. Therefore with warning no special cost is being imposed on applicant/ appellant.