Since, the review was sought on two grounds; being (a) amendment sought by the plaintiffs was hopelessly time barred and, (b) the learned trial court has passed order below Exh.71, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the learned District Judge, on scrutinising the record, noted that as far as Exh.71 is concerned, it was contested by the defendants by fling their say at Exh.73, but at the time when the application was argued, they remained absent, which prompted the Court to pass an ex-parte order, meaning thereby that an opportunity was offered, but it was not availed by the defendants and, therefore, the review could not have been allowed on the said point. Further, recording that the power of review is limited in its scope, which could be exercised only on existence of ground which are covered by Section 114 and/or Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the CPC, appreciating the settled legal position that the review proceedings are not the proceedings of an Appeal and must strictly confned in its scope and since the application did not satisfy the conditions set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 and there being no error apparent on the face of record in passing the order below Exh.71, the application was found to be wrongly entertained. Necessarily, the Appeal came to be allowed and the order passed by the trial court in review i.e. in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.95 of 2012 was set aside and the order passed below Exh.71, allowing the amendment, stood restored.
