JUDGMENT : 1. This review petition, under Section 114 readwith Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is preferred for review/alteration/modification of the judgment and order of this Court, dated 21.02.2022, passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 15/2021. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under: “The petitioner, Shri Tage Jerang, filed one Civil Revision Petition, under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945 readwith Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the Order No. SD/Kebang-109/2019-20, dated 25.08.2020, passed by the Circle Officer (Kebang), Boleng, under the capacity of the Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Siang District, Boleng, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner against the order dated 27.07.2020, and further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only which is to be deposited with the Kebang Office within 15 (fifteen) days. The dispute between the petitioner-Shri Tage Jerang and the respondent-Shri Taje Jerang arises in connection with a plot of land known as ‘Moma-Arik’. In connection with the said dispute, a Kebang was held on 19.07.2021, in which the village authority has decided the disputed land, i.e. ‘‘Moma-Arik’’, in favour of the petitioner and the Kebang has afforded opportunity to parties to go for appeal within a week from the date of the Kebang decision. Again, on 17.08.2020, the Circle Officer, Boleng, acting on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, had fixed a local Kebang for amicable settlement of the land dispute and fixed 25.08.2020 for holding Kebang at the disputed site itself and in the said Kebang, the Circle Officer did not allow the petitioner to place his grievance before the Kebang and thereafter, passed the impugned order, dated 25.08.2020, mechanically and held that the disputed land has already been settled by Shri Taro Mize, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, vide Order No. BLG-604 (GEN) 2015-16, dated Boleng the 4th April, 2016, in presence of Gaon Bura of Dosing Village on 30.01.2016 with regard to the ownership of the disputed ‘Moma-Arik’ WRC field. By the said decision, the Kebang has declared title of the disputed land in favour of the respondent-Shri Taje Jerang and directed the petitioner to deposit a fine of Rs. 5,000/-within 15 (fifteen) days.” 3. By the said decision, the Kebang has declared title of the disputed land in favour of the respondent-Shri Taje Jerang and directed the petitioner to deposit a fine of Rs. 5,000/-within 15 (fifteen) days.” 3. This Court, after hearing both the sides, vide judgment and order dated 21.02.2022, was pleased to dismiss the said civil revision petition basically on 2 (two) ground, i.e. the resjudicata and also on ground of limitation. 4. The sole respondent has filed his affidavit-in-opposition denying the averments made in the review petition. It is stated that no review is necessary on the grounds mentioned in the petition. 5. I have heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Posi, learned counsel for the respondent. 6. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this review petition is preferred basically under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, for discovery of new important matters which could not be produced by him at the time of hearing when the judgment and order was passed and also on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Mr. Tapak further submits that the grounds on which this Court was pleased to dismiss the revision petition are not just ground. It is pointed out that while dismissing the civil revision petition, this Court was pleased to refer to the Kebang decision dated 04.04.2016, and countersigned by the Additional Deputy Comissioner, Boleng, but the said order cannot be pressed into service to hold the Civil Revision Petition as barred by res judicata as because vide aforesaid decision, the Kebang had dealt with inheritance of ‘Moma-Arik’ land not with the right, title and interest of the parties and as such, the finding so recorded by this Court, while dismissing the revision petition, is required to be revisited. And, so far the finding of this Court on the point of limitation is concerned, Mr. And, so far the finding of this Court on the point of limitation is concerned, Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the impugned order was passed on 25.08.2020 and a certified copy of the same was furnished to him on 22.09.2020 yet the same was not a certified copy and as such, he had applied for certified copy on 15.09.2020, vide Annexure-5, and the copy was furnished to him on 29.06.2021, and he filed the civil revision petition on 16.05.2021 within a period of 8 (eight) days from the date of receiving the certified copy on 16.07.2020. Further, Mr. Tapak submits that at the relevant time, Covid-19 pandemic was prevalent and Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 10.01.2022, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2022, excluded the period of limitation w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, and the period of delay if any is covered by the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the period of limitation cannot be a ground for dismissing the Civil Revision Petition. 7. Controverting the submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner, Mr. K. Posi, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the ‘Moma-Arik’ land is all along in the possession of the respondent. The land belongs to Shri Taje Jerang and the same issue has already been decided by a Kebang held on 04.04.2016 and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, has countersigned the same wherein it is stated that the Shri Taje Jerang would be the legal heir of Tayi Jerang and ‘Moma-Arik’ land belongs to him. Mr. Posi further submits that vide the said decision, 3 (three) issues have been decided, one in respect of ownership of the ‘Moma-Arik’ land and another in respect of one Ledu Leku (local ornament) and in respect of another plot of land, under the guidance of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, and the said order attained finality having not been challenged by any of the parties. Mr. Posi further submits that after the death of Lt. Tayi Jerang, the review petitioner becomes active and he claimed the disputed land. But, he did not take any step to file any appeal against the aforesaid order. Thereafter, one local Kebang was held on 19.07.2020 at the instance of the petitioner wherein, in presence of some unscrupulous Gaon Buras, the disputed land was decided in favour of the review petitioner. But, he did not take any step to file any appeal against the aforesaid order. Thereafter, one local Kebang was held on 19.07.2020 at the instance of the petitioner wherein, in presence of some unscrupulous Gaon Buras, the disputed land was decided in favour of the review petitioner. The said Kebang decision was challenged before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Boleng, by filing appeal and the appeal has been decided in favour of the respondent vide impugned order dated 25.08.2020. Mr. Posi further submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the judgment and order of this Court, dated 21.02.2022. It is further submitted that the review petitioner has participated in the Kebang held on 06.04.2016 and he failed to produce any document to substantiate his submission. And, in respect of limitation, Mr. Posi submits that the review petitioner was served with a copy of the impugned order, dated 25.08.2020, on 22.09.2020 and there was no bar in filing the revision petition on the basis of the said copy of the order and the review petitioner slept over the order and thereafter, he preferred the petition, which is already barred by limitation and as such, the petition is not maintainable as there is no ground for review and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 8. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the judgment and order of this Court, dated 21.02.2022, passed in CRP No. 15/2021 and also perused the documents placed on record. 9. It appears that the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by this Court basically on 2 (two) grounds, one is limitation and the other is resjudicata. It also appears that the Kebang held on 04.04.2016, vide No. BLJ-604(GEN)/2015-16, dated 04.04.2016, had decide that the ‘Moma-Arik’ land belongs to Lt. Tayi Jearng and Tage Jerang has illegally claimed the same and as such, the claim is invalid. The said matter has already been decided in favour of Lt. Tayi Jerang during his life time. The said decision, dated 04.04.2016, was countersigned by ADC, Boleng. Therefore, the subsequent Kebang decision, dated 19.07.2020, is barred by the principle of resjudicata,as provided under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the issue was directly and substantially in issue in the decision dated 04.04.2016. Tayi Jerang during his life time. The said decision, dated 04.04.2016, was countersigned by ADC, Boleng. Therefore, the subsequent Kebang decision, dated 19.07.2020, is barred by the principle of resjudicata,as provided under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the issue was directly and substantially in issue in the decision dated 04.04.2016. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said Kebang, decision was taken only in respect of the inheritance of the ‘Moma-Arik’ land and it has not decided right, title and interest, yet, having gone through the subject matter of the decision, dated 04.04.2016, this Court left unimpressed by the submission, so advanced by Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Posi, learned counsel for the respondent, has rightly pointed this out and I find sufficient force in the same and I record concurrence with the same and as such, on this point, the judgment and order of this Court, dated 21.02.2022, requires no alteration or modification. 10. However, there is some substance in the submission of Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 03/2020, the period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 stands excluded. I have no doubt in my mind that the case of the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid order. However, this order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has neither been produced before this Court at the time of hearing nor at the time of filing the petition. Therefore, I am inclined to record my concurrence with the submission of Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, so far the issue of limitation is concerned. Though the learned counsel for the respondent tried to persuade this Court that on the basis of uncertified copy of the order, which was furnished to the petitioner on 22.09.2020, he could not have approached this Court, yet the same left this Court impressed as it is mandated by the Gauhati High Court Rules that certified copy of the order or judgment has to be enclosed with the petition. 11. 11. Though we record concurrence with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the issue of limitation, yet, I find no ground to review/alter/modify the judgment and order of this Court, dated 21.02.2022, on this sole ground as the other ground is found to be unsubstantiated and as there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The law in respect of review is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions. In the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India [ (2000) 6 SCC 224 ], it has been held that “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 grace error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.” 12. Here in this case, except in the case of second point, i.e. limitation, there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Rather the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the decision dated 04.04.2016, appears to be misleading. 13. In the result, I find no merit in this review petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.