JUDGMENT
S.K. Gupta, J.
1. This petition has been preferred in seeking review of the judgment and order dated 17-04-2003 formulated by this Court in Civil Revision No. 54/2002, entitled Jammu Development Authority and Ors. v. Baljeet Singh Manhas.
It appears that in a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the land explicitly delineated in para No. 1 of the petition, commenced before the Trial Court, an application came to be initiated by the defendant-JDA seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule II (d) for non-fulfilment of the mandate of giving a prior notice under section 48 of the Development Act, 1970. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, held that such a plea can be raised and gone into by the Court after the written statement has been filed in the case, and rejected the application vide order dated 28-2-2002, which became the subject matter of revision before this Court. When the matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the respondent and the case against him was set exparte. The Court, after referring to the provisions of section 48(1) of the Development Act, 1970, found that in its plain language, no suit for relief against the Development Authority or any of its members or officers or employees or any person acting under the directions of such authority, member, ‘officer or an employee in respect of any act done or purported to have been done under the Act or any rule or regulation framed thereunder unless the prior notice of two months is given stating therein the cause of action and the relief claimed in the suit against such authority or such officer or official against whom the suit is proposed. The Court further held that the averments with regard to the prior notice of two months given to the Development Authority must contain in the plaint. The predominant idea behind this provision is to afford an opportunity and to give sufficient time to the JDA to settle claim before entering into litigation. After examining the averments in the plaint and the record of the file, the Court found that there is blatant non-compliance of the relevant provisions of section 48(1) of the Development Act, 1970 and allowed the revision, and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule II (d) of the CPC.
2. It is this order, which is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner on the grounds that opportunity of being heard has not been provided to the petitioner and the revision stood decided setting the case exparte. It is further submitted that the provisions of section 48(1) of the Development Act, 1970 are attracted only when the Jammu Development Authority or any officer or employee of the authority has done any act in pursuance of the Development Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder. Further contention raised is that before determining the jurisdictional error of the Court, averments in the plaint are relevant. The order having been passed by the Court, without taking into account the averments in the plaint and the applicability of the provisions of section 48(1) of the Development Act, 1970, needs to be reviewed.
3. It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference in review application is very much limited. Unless the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand wil lead to failure of justice, no interference can be made in review jurisdiction. The mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is one, which is self-evident and does not require a process of reasoning to use the review jurisdiction. An error, which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC. It is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. There is a clear and marked distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. Thus, a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. The points raised have been dealt with by the Court while deciding the Revision Petition.
4. On going through the order under review and the record of the file, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the order needed to be recalled or reviewed in exercise of review jurisdiction.
5. The petition, in my view, is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.