JUDGMENT : The instant review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 and Section 151 CPC has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant against the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by this Court in SB Civil Misc Appeal No. 3353/2018. 2. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit under Order 37 CPC against the appellant for recovery of Rs. 37,71,943/-from the appellant-defendant in the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short, learned Trial Court). The appellant herein preferred an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Trial Court stating inter alia that the purchase orders issued by it from time to time contained an arbitration clause and arbitration proceedings have already commenced in the matter. Thus, it was prayed that the proceedings in the suit be stayed and the dispute be referred to arbitration. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial court on 23.08.2018 on the ground that the existence of arbitration agreement between the parties is a disputed fact. 3. Against the order dated 23.08.2018, the appellant herein preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying that the order passed by learned Trial Court may be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act may be allowed. Vide order under review dated 04.01.2019, the appeal was rejected. 4. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the same was withdrawn by the appellant with liberty to file review petition before this Court as certain wrong facts were noted in the order under review. The SLP was withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid vide order dated 26.08.2019. Hence, the present review petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant submits that the order under review dated 04.01.2019 is based upon incorrect facts and therefore, the said order deserves to be reviewed/recalled. It is further submitted that this Court wrongly noted that the learned trial court has not accepted the fact that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and had reached to the conclusion that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the same is contrary to the material available on record. It is further submitted that this Court wrongly noted that the learned trial court has not accepted the fact that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and had reached to the conclusion that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. However, the same is contrary to the material available on record. It is also submitted that this Court has wrongly noted that the learned Trial court has held that the application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act is defective as there is non-compliance of provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act. Thus, it is prayed that the appeal be reheard and decided afresh in terms of the prayer made in the original appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the order under review and submits that the said order is a speaking order and does not call for any interference. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. An application for review of a judgment can be preferred in terms of Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC states that: “1. Application for review of judgment.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes. and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. ….” From a bare perusal of the provision, it is clear that the grounds for preferring the review of a judgment are-i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which even after exercising due diligence was not within knowledge of applicant at the time when decree was passed or order was made, ii) mistake or error apparent on face of record and iii) any other sufficient reason. 9. On a perusal of the review petition, I am of the considered opinion that no case of review is made out in the present case. No grounds have been set forth by the petitioner so as to show that there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of record and/or any wrong facts have been noted while passing the order under review. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner have no force in as much as the order under review is a speaking order. Learned Single Judge has minutely examined the material available on record as well as the law on the subject to arrive at the conclusion. Vide the order under review, it has been recorded that the appellant has neither produced original copy of the agreement nor its certified copy along with the application under Section 8(1) of the Act and thus, the existence of arbitration agreement is not evident. 10. In view of above, no case is made out for review/recalling of the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by learned Single Judge. Consequently, the present review petition is dismissed. 11. No order as to costs.