1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---By this order we intend to dispose of Constitutional Petitions Nos.196 to 198 of 2003 as a common points of law arc involved.
2. ' Brief facts of the purpose of disposing off the petitions are that petitioner is owner of the Revenue Survey No.79 measuring 600 Sq. Ft. Situated near Government Hospital, Pretabad, Hyderabad and has constructed some houses on the said plot. The respondents were allowed to occupy House Nos.27, 31 and 79 on the assurance of vacating the same after three months. After expiry of three moths the respondent refused to vacate the house hence, the petitioner filed suit before learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad against the respondent for possession and mesne profit. The respondent remained absent and as such, an ex parte judgment. And decree were passed by the learned trial Court on 30-1-2002 and while decreeing the suit for possession the learned Judge declined the relief for mesne profits as claimed by the petitioner in the suit. The petitioner after passing the said judgment and decree, did not prefer any appeal against the finding recorded by learned Senior Civil Judge, declining the relief for the mesne profits, hence, the said finding of the learned trial Court attained finality. The petitioner on 17-4-2002 filed an application under Order 47, rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C. Before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and prayed to review the judgment and decree dated 30-1-2002. The applications were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 6-5-2002 holding that the petitioner/plaintiff if aggrieved by the judgment in question, the proper course for him was to file an appeal against the judgment instead of filing an application for review after more than two and half months of passing of judgment. Aggrieved with the said orders, the petitioner filed Revision Applications Nos.35 to 37 of 2002, which too were dismissed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Hyderabad vide order dated 6-5-2003. The learned Revisional Court held that after expiry of the appeal period the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court attained finality, which the petitioner now wants to assail by filing the review applications.
3. ' Heard Mr. Rafique Ahmed, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
4. ' Learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court committed error of law in disallowing the relief of mesne profits on the ground that the respondents are poor persons and, as such the applications for review were maintainable. Learned Advocate further argued that the.
5. Petitioner gave temporary accommodation to the respondents for a specific period and after expiry of the said period since respondents have failed to vacate the premises in their possession, the petitioner was entitled for the mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2000 per month.
6. ' We have taken in consideration the arguments, advanced by the learned Advocate and also perused the record.
7. ' In the plaint while claiming mesne profits, petitioner has only stated that "the defendant/respondent is in unauthorized possession of the house since September, 2000 and hence the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit at the rate of Rs.2000 per month from September, 2000". No particular has been given that on what basis the petitioner has claimed Rs.2000 per month as mesne profits, in respect of the premises in possession of the respondent. Learned trial Court disallowed the relief of mesne profit disbelieving the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has handed over the premises in question to the respondent without any written document i.e. Rent agreement and had allowed the respondent to occupy the said property without any rent or consideration. This finding of the trial Court has not been assailed by way of an appeal and, as such same attained finality. A review application cannot be filed as an alternate of an appeal as the Court can review his order only if falling within the limit prescribed by Order 47, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. It need not be emphasized that a review application can be filed when some new fact and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of plaintiff and could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake appearing on the face of judgment/order.
8. An application for the review is maintainable for correcting the error in the order/judgment and not for correcting the wrong decision. The petitioner's case does not fall within the four corner of Order 47, rule 1, C . P. C .
9. ' We are of the view that the orders passed by trial Court as well as Revisional Court, dismissing the review application, are in accordance with law, warranting no interference.
10. ' For the foregoing reasons the Constitutional petitions are dismissed.
11. ' Above are the reasons for our short order dated 17-2-2004.