1. MD. NURUL HUDA (CHAIRMAN). This misc, case arises out of an application, tinder Order XLVII, rule 1 of the C. P. C. for review of a contested judgment of this Court. Opposite-party opposes the application.
2. On a perusal of review application, it appears that the judgment of the Court has been assailed on several grounds. It is said that the Court should have `given termination benefits, Court, however, held on materials before it that this is not a case of termination simpliciter, but dismissal in effect. It is ass sought to be said that dismissal, if any wag not proper and Court' findings to that effect is erroneous. It is also said that the Court travelled beyond the scope of the case. Be that as it may these are no grounds for, review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the C. P. C. Review is entertained on two well-defined settled grounds, discovery of important matter or evidence, or any error or mistake apparent on the face of this record.
3. I have scanned the judgment and the review petition and I say that there is no material for review of the judgment. The application is quite misconceived. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any findings of the judgment, his remedy is elsewhere. The learned members also agree with me. So ORDERED That the misc. case be dismissed on contest. Considering circumstances I direct Ithe parties to bear their respective cost of the case.