ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J. 1. These review petitions were filed by the applicant–petitioner aggrieved from the order dated 28.05.2025 in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 281/2019 , titled as Bhori Lal vs. Suva Lal and Others , and SB Civil Revision Petition No. 282/2019, titled Bhori Lal vs. Gulab Devi and Others passed by this Court. Both the revision petitions No. 281/2019 and 282/2019 were filed aggrieved from a common order dated 27.09.2019 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 234/2014 and 25/2014 under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 19, Jaipur Metro Headquarters, Sanganer, whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2013 in Civil Suit No. 32/2013 was set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner, while placing reliance upon the grounds of the review petition, submitted that in para 8 of the order of the Hon’ble Court, it has been observed that both defendants, Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi, on whose applications the decree was set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, were residing at a different place, whereas the service was in fact effected upon them at the address where they were residing on the date of service. He further submitted that even the process server was examined by the review petitioner before the trial court to show that notices were served upon the defendants, Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi, on their correct address, as mentioned in plaint and admitted by other defendnts. He further referred to the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC and submitted that an application to set aside a decree cannot be allowed merely on the ground of irregularity in service of notice. He further submitted that both Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi were duly served with notice and the same stands proved on record, but without considering the evidence of the process server, the revision petitions were decided by Hon’ble this Court. He also submitted that the evidence of the process server has not been rebutted by the respondents, and the said evidence is sufficient to draw a conclusion that proper notice was served upon Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi. He further submitted that neither Gulab Devi nor Suwa Devi were in possession of the land in question, which is in fact in possession of the present petitioner. He further submitted that neither Gulab Devi nor Suwa Devi were in possession of the land in question, which is in fact in possession of the present petitioner. He also submitted that out of 10 legal heirs of Jagdish, 8 have already accepted the decree and have executed a sale deed in favour of the present petitioner. He also submitted that the case of Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi pertains only to irregular service and not to non-service; therefore, the mistake is apparent on the face of the record, and in such circumstances, the review is maintainable and the order passed on a wrong analogy is required to be recalled and reviewed. He also submitted that where 8 defendants have executed sale deed then on basis of application of 2 defendants, entire decree cannot be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the review petition, has submitted that the review petitioner wants to set aside the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court on merits, and for that purpose a review is not maintainable. He further submitted that a very specific observation has been made by the trial court at page No. 13 regarding the residence of Suwa Devi. He also submitted that no notice was ever served upon Suwa Devi, and without serving a notice upon her, the decree was passed. He further referred to page No. 14 with respect to Gulab Devi and submitted that the trial court has observed that there is no service at all upon Gulab Devi. He further submitted that where there is no service, and ex-parte proceedings have been initiated against any person then a decree is liable to be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 4. He further placed reliance upon the judgments in S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan and Ors. , (2023) 13 SCC 515, and Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board , (2022) 2 SCC 677 , and submitted that there is a very limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC. He also submitted that an erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum, but it cannot be challenged by filing a review petition. He also referred to the order dated 12.09.2024 in SB Civil Review Petition No. 39/2024 , Amar Saxena and Others v. Ashray Saxena. 5. He also submitted that an erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum, but it cannot be challenged by filing a review petition. He also referred to the order dated 12.09.2024 in SB Civil Review Petition No. 39/2024 , Amar Saxena and Others v. Ashray Saxena. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record and also considered the judgments referred by learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Aggrieved from the order dated 28.05.2025 in SB Civil Revision Petition Nos. 281/2019 and 282/2019, these two review petitions have been preferred by the review petitioner–applicant on several grounds, which include erroneous interpretation of provisions of law, ignorance of material on record, subsequent events after passing of the decree, and certain casual observations in para No. 8 of the order. 7. We have considered the grounds of review as relied and stressed by learned counsel for the review petitioner and also the grounds mentioned in the review petitions. The scope of review is very limited, and we have considered the judgments in S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. (supra) , and M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board (supra), while considering a review petition in case of Amar Saxena Vs. Ashray Saxena (supra) , the relevant part is reproduced as under: “6. In case of S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. 2023 SCC Online SC 185, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC has observed that while hearing the review petition the Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Thus, the re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Further, relying upon judgment in case of M/s. Shanti Contractors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam State Electricity Board (2020) 2 SCC 677 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue question which have already been addressed and decided. Similarly, in case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer and Anr., 2023 INSC 963 Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the judgment of Constitution Bench in case of Beghar Foundation through its Secretary and Anr. Vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors.. Similarly, in case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer and Anr., 2023 INSC 963 Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the judgment of Constitution Bench in case of Beghar Foundation through its Secretary and Anr. Vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors.. (2021) 3 SCC 1 held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of Co- ordinate Bench or Larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 8. The material on record clearly indicates that the review petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance against 10 persons, who are the legal heirs of late Shri Jagdish. The agreement to sell was executed by Jagdish on 10.02.2009. After execution of the agreement, Jagdish died on 24.02.2010, and thereafter the civil suit was filed by the petitioner. The trial court passed a decree on 24.10.2013. Two defendants, Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi, both married daughters of late Jagdish, filed separate applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Both applications were decided by a common order dated 27.09.2019. 9. While deciding the applications, the trial court observed that neither Suwa Devi nor Gulab Devi were served notice of the civil suit. The trial court considered the evidence of the process server while drawing a conclusion about non-service upon Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi. After finding that this amounted to serious miscarriage of justice towards Suwa Devi and Gulab Devi, the applications under Order IX Rule 13 CPC were allowed and the decree as a whole was set aside, as the decree was indivisible, and the suit was ordered to be re-registered for re-trial. 10. In the meanwhile, 8 out of the 10 defendants had executed and registered a sale deed and handed over possession to the review petitioner. These 8 defendants have not challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2013 in Civil Suit No. 32/2013. The aggrieved petitioner preferred two revision petitions which were dismissed by this Court on 28.05.2025. Since the order dated 28.05.2025 has been passed on merits, there is no scope for interference or setting aside the same in review jurisdiction. Thus, the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are beyond the limited scope of a review petition, and consequently, these review petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, both the review petitions are hereby dismissed along with any pending applications. 12. Thus, the grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are beyond the limited scope of a review petition, and consequently, these review petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, both the review petitions are hereby dismissed along with any pending applications. 12. No order as to cost.