Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for applicant and perused the record.
(2.) By means of present review petition, the applicant has sought for review of the judgment and order dated 29.7.2015 passed in Writ Petition no.4296 (SS) of 2015 (Pooja Devi v. State of U.P. And others).
(3.) Before deciding review petition, I feel it appropriate to state the ambit and scope under which the court can review its earlier order. In this regard Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372 , held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.;