- (1.) By this review petition, the Petitioner has prayed that the judgment and order dated 1.9.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 91 of 2010 (R/C) may be recalled.?
(2.) As far as the review petition is concerned, under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 record. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, 1995 1 SCC 170 . the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the above view in Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi, 1997 8 SCC 715 . observed that under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure is a rider on the power of the Court, which passed the order. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. On the aforesaid acid test, it is settled position that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(3.) In the instant review petition, there is no mistake on the face of the record but the Petitioner wants to keep the controversy alive for one reason or another.;