Power of review, therefore, is limited and companyfined subject to the aforesaid companyditions.
Order LXVII Rule 1 entitles a party who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was number within his knowledge or companyld number 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, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, to apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
8108 8109 OF 2001 These appeals are preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 8.3.2001 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A.No.73 of 1993 and C.P. No.
Aggrieved thereby the defendants filed appeal before the High Court which was dismissed on merits after recording a finding by the same Judge on 7.4.1999.
After the warrant of delivery of possession was issued it appears that the defendants filed a review application under Order LXVII Rule 1 sometime in August, 1999 and by the impugned order the High Court has allowed, number only the review application but allowed the appeal which was already dismissed by the Court on 7.4.1999.
Plaintiffs Execution Petition was allowed by the Executing Court and warrant of delivery of possession was issued.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt on 25.9.1992.
O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
The plaintiffs filed a suit in 1981 for declaration of possession.
The facts of this case illustrate a disquieting feature as to how the power under Order LXVII Rule 1 is being misused.
683 of 1999.
