JUDGMENT : 1. The present review application is directed against the order dated 27.12.2017 passed in the Civil Revision Application No. 446 of 2017. 2. The case in brief is that the respondent no. 1 herein had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 64 of 2016 seeking partition and permanent injunction mainly on the premise that she has been gifted half of undivided share in Plot No. 158 admeasuring 995 sq. meters situated in the land bearing Survey/Block No. 13, 15 and 16 of the respondent no. 3 society situated at Village Palodiya, District :- Gandhinagar. 3. Upon receipt of the summons of the suit proceeding, it appears that by raising several issues, written statement has been filed at Exh. 23 in which one of the issue which has been raised is that by virtue of lavad suit no. 4447 of 2013 having been withdrawn unconditionally by withdrawal pursis at Exh. 36 from the file of learned Board of Nominees of Ahmedabad, the present suit is not maintainable and on this premise even on application at Exh. 26 appears to have been preferred by the present applicant under Rule 7 Order 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application preferred by the present applicant has been replied at a relevant point of time at Exh. 33 and based upon by-parte hearing, application at Exh. 26 came to be rejected vide order dated 23.09.2017, against which original Civil Revision Application No. 446 of 2017 was filed by the applicant. The said Civil Revision Application came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 27.12.2017 whereby, the Court has not accepted the Revision Application and notice was discharged. However, with a view to allow the applicant to avail of an appropriate remedy, for a period of four weeks the order passed in Revision Application was suspended. With these background, the Misc. Civil Application came to be filed in the month of February, 2018. 4. The learned advocate Mr. Brijesh Trivedi appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently contended that since the earlier lavad suit was unconditionally withdrawn, the present suit with respect to same property in the present form is not maintainable and has submitted that an apparent error is committed by the Court. 4. The learned advocate Mr. Brijesh Trivedi appearing on behalf of the applicant has vehemently contended that since the earlier lavad suit was unconditionally withdrawn, the present suit with respect to same property in the present form is not maintainable and has submitted that an apparent error is committed by the Court. It has further been contended that if the withdrawal of the suit was unconditional, the same cannot be said to be conditional by any stretch of imagination and the purported withdrawal of the suit additionally would not require the learned Court to examine whether such permission to be granted in which circumstance and as such the same cannot be contended unless and until the condition stipulated under Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure are satisfied and this construction of provision has not been apparently appreciated while disposing of the Revision Application. It has further been contended that background of the facts of such withdrawal would not warrant any undue sympathy to the opponent and it has been held by catana of decisions that misplaced sympathy has no room in deciding the litigation. It has further been contended by raising specifically ground 'C' that the order is not passed in a just and proper manner. However, the main plank of argument is centering around principle underline under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and by reiterating that since unconditional withdrawal has taken place on lavad suit, the present suit is not maintainable at all. 5. To substantiate the contention, few decisions are relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant which suggest that this is a fit case in which the order is required to be reviewed. The said decisions are :- (a) Dhanjibhai Bhanabhai @ Bhanjibhai Maru vs. State of Gujarat delivered in Misc. Civil Application No. 01 of 2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 9902 of 2015; (b) Babubhai Ishwarlal Patel vs. Pachchim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. and Ors. delivered in Misc. Civil Application No. 491 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2934 of 2008 with Misc. Civil Application No. 01 of 2017 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 906 of 2016 in Special Civil Application No. 9902 of 2015; (b) Babubhai Ishwarlal Patel vs. Pachchim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. and Ors. delivered in Misc. Civil Application No. 491 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2934 of 2008 with Misc. Civil Application No. 913 of 2014 in Special Civil Application No. 4098 of 2008; (c) Mahanth Singh vs. U Ba Yi reported in AIR 1939 Privy Council 110; (d) Hari Vishnu Kanah vs. Ahmad Ishaque and others reported in AIR 1955 SC 233 ; (e) Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 88 6. Mr. Trivedi has further submitted that the withdrawal of the suit is also having some background. Since interim relief was rejected in the suit, main proceeding came to be withdrawn and then the present suit has been submitted and in reply to the injunction, a specific point of jurisdiction is raised at initial stage itself. Still for a period of two years, the issue has been dragged on and later on filed a fresh suit and therefore the second suit with respect to the same is absolutely barred by law and abuse of process of law. As a result of this, the order under review requires to be recalled. 7. To meet with the stand taken by the learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Yatin Soni appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted by filing a detailed reply attached with the document of gift in favour of the opponent along with other decisions that this is not a fit case in which any review is required, in fact, elaborate reasons are assigned while disposing of the main Revision Petition and there is no error apparent on the basis of record. Mr. Soni has further submitted that even to challenge the main order, four weeks' time has been granted by the appellant and instead of challenging before the appropriate forum, the present mode of review application is adopted which is thoroughly uncalled for. It has further been contended by Mr. Soni that a gift deed was executed in favour of his client and the same is not in dispute at all. According to Mr. It has further been contended by Mr. Soni that a gift deed was executed in favour of his client and the same is not in dispute at all. According to Mr. Soni, there are ongoing disputes between the parties and, therefore, by raising hyper-technicalities somehow the substantive suit is to be thwarted by the applicant and therefore no case is made out for reviewing the order. It has further been contended that this is a classic case of mental cruelty to his client for not paying maintenance. As a result of this, a specific registered gift deed validly executed in favour of his client. Mr. Soni has contended that lavad suit was withdrawn in view of the fact that the stand was taken that respondent was never a member of the society and therefore the specific point of jurisdiction was raised by the society in which the plot is situated and therefore the suit was withdrawn so as to see that before proper forum the grievance can be ventilated. After withdrawal of the said suit if this suit is allowed to be disposed of which the applicant wishes, practically the opponent would be non-suited and in the withdrawal pursis also it has been specifically mentioned at Exh. 36 that a lavad suit is to be withdrawn with a view to file it before the appropriate Court and therefore even if the said process is to be treated as unconditional then also, the purpose of such withdrawal is very much reflected in pursis itself and therefore considering this set of circumstances the revisional Court has properly exercised jurisdiction and there is no case made out of reviewing the order once having been disposed of after by-parte hearing. 8. Mr. Soni, the learned advocate has further reiterated that withdrawal pursis at Exh. 36 itself is reflecting a specific intent of the applicant as to why suit to be withdrawn and therefore now it is not open for the applicant to come out with an application under Rule 7 Order 11 of Code of Civil Procedure with an ultimate idea of non-suiting the opponent. 36 itself is reflecting a specific intent of the applicant as to why suit to be withdrawn and therefore now it is not open for the applicant to come out with an application under Rule 7 Order 11 of Code of Civil Procedure with an ultimate idea of non-suiting the opponent. Since, the Board of Nominee has no jurisdiction to deal with, the opponent brought the present suit before the competent Court and further it has been contended that Board of Nominee is not a Court, but is practically a Quasi Judicial Authority, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not strictly applicable and therefore, under this set of circumstance, the review is not to be undertaken. Additionally, the learned advocate Mr. Soni has submitted that review jurisdiction is a very limited jurisdiction and unless and until there is an apparent error, the same cannot be exercised and here no such error is visible on the face of record which calls for any interference. Mr. Soni has further relied upon decisions reported in :- (a) Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337 ; (b) M/s. Kamala Mills Ltd. vs. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1965 SC 1942 ; (c) Alka Gupta vs. Narender Kumar Gupta reported in (2010) 10 SCC 141 ; (d) Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners' Association, Delhi through its President vs. Union of India and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 296 ; (e) Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation vs. Anil Garg reported in 2017 (0) AIJEL-SC 59961 By referring the above decisions and looking to the limited scope of jurisdiction of review, no case is made out by the applicant. 9. To meet with the stand taken by the learned advocate for the opponent, Mr. Brijesh Trivedi learned advocate for the applicant has contended from the rejoinder affidavit which has been filed and reiterated that while disposing of the lavad suit the cost has been imposed upon and therefore, this has to be treated as unconditional withdrawal. The order therefore requires to be corrected by recalling the same. Brijesh Trivedi learned advocate for the applicant has contended from the rejoinder affidavit which has been filed and reiterated that while disposing of the lavad suit the cost has been imposed upon and therefore, this has to be treated as unconditional withdrawal. The order therefore requires to be corrected by recalling the same. It has further been contended that on submission of withdrawal application, on the very same day order is passed and the word which has been inserted “Binsharti” is not agitated by the opponent at any time and therefore since both suits are almost of similar relief, the litigant cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue which has been acquineed by the opponent. Mr. Trivedi the learned advocate has further submitted a clear dispute centering around very same property and has further reiterated the principle laid down in AIR 1955 SCC 233 and ultimately requested the Court to recall the order which has been passed while disposing of the main Revision Petition. 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through various decisions which have been brought to the notice of Court, first of all, the Court would like to state specifically that while disposing of the main revision application elaborate reasons are assigned. On 27.12.2017, the Court has also specifically taken note of the withdrawal pursis and its effect and passed an order extending the opportunity to the parties. The Court has also taken note of a decision about interim relief pointed out by the learned advocate for the applicant and keeping in view the proposition of law laid down on the issue, a reasoned order is passed. The Court has also taken note of the fact of Order 23 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure and has also examined and decided the same looking to peripheral scope of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore keeping in view the circumstances which are narrated in an order dated 27.12.2017, no case for review is made out. 11. 11. The Court has also considered various decisions which have been cited while hearing this review application and keeping in mind such salutary proposition, the Court is of the opinion that this is a case in which no error apparent is reflecting from the order and if the applicant is not in a position to accept the decision delivered by this Court, the time had already been granted to assail the order before appropriate forum. 12. The Court has also examined the main order dated 27.12.2017 from the view point of the contentions raised by the applicant and upon such examination the Court found no apparent error in the decision which requires rehearing of the main Civil Revision Application. Accordingly, keeping in view the peripheral scope of the review application, the Court is of the considered opinion not to accept the review petition submitted by the applicant. 13. Following are the recent pronouncements which are kept in mind by the Court while disposing of the present application and having found the ratio laid down by various decisions which have been brought to the notice, the application does not deserve to be accepted. Some of the observations contained recent pronouncement since are considered, reproduced hereunder:- 13.1. In the case of Northern India Caterers vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi reported in AIR 1980 SC 674 , the relevant paragraphs 8 and 9 reads as under:- 8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1965) 1 SCR 933 at p. 948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCR 748 at p. 760. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt. Judge Delhi, (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p. 27. G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCR 748 at p. 760. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt. Judge Delhi, (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p. 27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art. 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Art. 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in XLVII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility." Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 3 SCR 933 . 9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 13.2. Even in the recent pronouncement as well, the Apex Court in case of Mukesh vs. State (NCT) Delhi reported in (2018) 8 SCC 149 has analysed the ambit and scope of review petition. 13.2. Even in the recent pronouncement as well, the Apex Court in case of Mukesh vs. State (NCT) Delhi reported in (2018) 8 SCC 149 has analysed the ambit and scope of review petition. Of course, Court was dealing with an issue related to review petition in criminal proceedings but few of the observations are guiding feature on the scope of review. Repeatedly the Apex Court has propounded that an application for review of a judgment is not to be lightly entitled and in any case the same cannot be allowed to re-hear the entire matter all over again and the review is not an appeal in disguise. The Apex Court in the said judgment has also categorically observed in para : 7 that, “... We see no insuperable difficulty in equating the area in civil and criminal proceedings when review power is invoked for the same source” and as such it has been propounded that in review petition it is not open for the Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach to altogether the different conclusion even if it is possible. A conjoint reading of entire judgment is clearly indicating that review petition may not be allowed to be utilized as a re- hearing of the original matter and the power has to be exercised with extreme care caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. 14. Therefore in light of the aforesaid proposition, the Court has examined the contentions which have been pressed into service as discussed above and considered the decisions relied upon while pressed for review of the original order. Hence, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the present review application, the Court is not inclined to rehear the issue which has already been decided and disposed of by final order. 15. So far as dealing with the decisions which are cited across at length to be concerned, keeping in mind aforesaid proposition, the Court is also of the opinion that slight change or additional fact would make a world of difference in applying a decision. The Court has not elaborately as such discussed all those decisions but, having examined the merits of this case from the context of review, the Court is of the view that this is not a fit case in which the review is permissible. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with no order as to cost. The Court has not elaborately as such discussed all those decisions but, having examined the merits of this case from the context of review, the Court is of the view that this is not a fit case in which the review is permissible. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed with no order as to cost. FURTHER ORDER After pronouncement of the judgment, the learned advocate for the applicant has requested that since the applicant wants to avail the remedy to prefer the proceeding before the higher forum, the trial Court may be directed to consider the request for adjournment. Considering this request, the learned advocate has shown much resistance. As a result of this, the trial Court is requested to consider the request for adjournment for a period of eight weeks but not beyond that.