P. Krishna Kumar, J.

1. Review is sought on the ground that, a telephonic conversion having bearing on the claim raised in the original petition could not be produced earlier. It was traced out only on 10.10.2025, when the 1st review petitioner went through the chats and call records which he had with his father-in-law and also the wife, it is claimed. Such recording is sought to be produced after copying it to a pen drive.

2. The failure to produce evidence during the trial when such material was available with the parties is not a ground to seek review of the judgment (Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C). By the present review, what is attempted is exactly the same. In State Of West Bengal And Others v. Kamal Sengupta And Another (2008 (8) SCC 612), the Apex Court held,

                  “Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier”.

3. The factum of a telephonic conversion as is now attempted to be projected, was never set up during the trial stage or at the appellate stage. It cannot be said that the alleged evidence was not within his knowledge and even after due diligence it could not be produced in the Court earlier.

4. No ground warranting entertaining of the review petition is made out.

The review petition fails and is dismissed.