JUDGMENT Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - This is an application for review of an order dated 19th February, 2019 passed by this Court in CO No.3847 of 2018 filed by the applicant/opposite party of the above mentioned revisional application. 2. Co 3847 of 2018 was an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the wife/opposite party herein praying for transfer of a Matrimonial Suit No.61 of 2018 instituted by the applicant/opposite party from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Mathabhanga to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Purulia. The said application was disposed of by this Court on 19th February, 2019 allowing the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and transferring the Matrimonial Suit No.61 of 2018 pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Mathabhanga to the Court of the learned District Judge, Paschim Burdwan. 3. It is pertinent to note that on the date of hearing of CO 3847 of 2018, the opposite party remains absent. Subsequently, on 25th February, 2019, the instant application for review was filed. 4. It is stated in the application that while disposing of the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure this Court considered comparative convenience and inconvenience of both the petitioner and the opposite party and passed the order transferring the matrimonial suit from the Court of the learned District Judge Mathabhanga to the Court of the learned District Judge Paschim Burdwan. The applicant has contended that while considering the relative convenience and inconvenience, this Court decided the application on mistake of fact. Distance between Purulia and Paschim Burdwan is about 88 km, whereas the distance between Mathabhanga and Paschim Burdwan is about 567 km therefore, the opposite party will suffer more convenience than the petitioner if the suit is transferred to Paschim Burdwan. 5. An application for review can be entertained on the following three grounds:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and (iii) For any other sufficient reason. 6. 6. It is urged by the learned Advocate for the applicant that this Court passed order in CO 3847 of 2018 on mistake or error of fact while transferring the suit to Paschim Burdwan on wrong assumption that distance between Mathabhanga and Paschim Burdwan and between Purulia and Paschim Burdwan is also similar. This court failed to consider that the applicant will have to travel a distance of about 567 km from Mathabhanga to contest the matrimonial suit filed by him. On this score the order passed in CO 3847 of 2018 is amenable to review. 7. I have carefully perused the order passed in CO 3847 of 2018. It is recorded in the said order that convenience of wife is the prime consideration while considering an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of a matrimonial suit. If the convenience of the wife was alone considered then the said matrimonial suit ought to have been transferred to Purulia but this Court considered the inconvenience of the opposite party though he was not represented by any learned Advocate in the said proceeding. 8. On perusal of the record, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any mistake of fact as alleged by the opposite party. 9. For the reasons stated above I do not find any merit in the instant review. Accordingly the instant review application is dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the review application, CAN 2029 of 2019 also stands rejected.