This is a review application against the order of a D.B. comprising of Shri Gajendra Singh and myself dated 11-6-65. As Shri Gajendra Singh has since ceased to be attached with [the Board, it has come up for hearing before me The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to para No. 5 of the judgment. It was observed therein that when questioned, the learned counsel for the appellants was not able to show how Panna Mali, the alleged vendor of the land came to acquire his title over the land. It was stated that this was a serious lacuna in the case of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellants had stated that some of the documents produced by him were not traceable on record. Several attempts were made to retrieve those documents but the same were not made available. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants was not able to indicate the importance of these documents also nor had he made any attempts to produce their copies. The learned counsel has now produced a copy of the patta whereby it is alleged that the disputed land was given to the ancestors of Panna Mali (vendor) predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. According to this patta, land measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas described therein was given to the ancestors of Panna Mali in St. year 1926. He has also referred to the sale deed made by Panna Mali in favour of Ramniwas in March, 1945 and also a lease Chitthi in Smt. 2003 in favour of Ram Niwas. He has also referred to the statement of Harishchandra P. W., 4 scribe of the lease Chitthi and also the settlement Panri for Smt year 2006 and argues that an error apparent on the face of the record was committed by the D. B. in ignoring the weight of these documents. I fail to appreciate this argument, As the impugned judgment reads, I find that due note was taken of the sale deed dated 14-3-45 executed by Panna Mali in favour of Ramniwas as well as the permission obtained from the Naib-Tehsildar for the cultivation of this land from Smt. 2003 to 2012 and the settlement Panri issued on 10-10 49. But on basis of the observations of the Addl. But on basis of the observations of the Addl. Commissioner who had concurred with the finding of the court below that the patta said to have been issued by the Naib-Tehsildar on 15-11-47 and the sale deed did not specify the land and, therefore, the plaintiffs had failed to prove their title as well as the possession over the disputed land, we declined to interfere with the order impugned before us in appeal. We also took note of the fact that the order of the Assistant Collector, dated 20-1-55 showed that the application of the plaintiffs under the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance filed on 24-8-50 was rejected by the Anti Ejectment Officer. From this we concluded that the respondent had been in the possession of the land since before 1949. Then we went on to observe that Panna Mali had failed to show how he had come to acquire his title over the land. We did not find the decision of the lower courts contrary to law or some usage having the force of law or discover any mis-reading of the evidence or any other substantial error or defect in the procedure adopted by the courts which may have a bearing on the decision of the case upon its merits. This being a suit u/s 183 read with Sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, we observed that it was necessary for the plaintiffs to establish that they were entitled to admit the trespasser as a tenant. As we found that the plaintiffs title was shrouded in obscurity we did not feel persuaded to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below and rejected the appeal. As has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party, the scope of review is strictly limited. It does not permit the re-arguing of an appeal unless an error apparent on the face of the record can be shown to exist. An error apparent on the face of the record is an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It is an error so manifest and clear that no court would allow such an error to remain on record. An error which requires to be demonstrated by a process of rationalisation does not fall in this category. It is an error so manifest and clear that no court would allow such an error to remain on record. An error which requires to be demonstrated by a process of rationalisation does not fall in this category. It is well settled that no review lies even if the decision of the court is erroneous, if the court was aware of what it was doing. Evidently, no such error has been p6inted out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this case. As has been argued by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, even the production of the patta does not in any manner improve the case of the petitioners in so far as the patta does not specifically mention the khasra numbers in dispute. It is also relevant to note that the area of the khasra numbers in dispute measures 5 bighas 13 biswas whereas the patta relates to 16 bighas 11 biswas. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that these three khasra numbers formed part of 16 bighas allotted to the ancestors of Panna Mali. But beyond his bare statement he had nothing to show on record to support his contention. It is very clear that the learned counsel wants to re-argue the appeal in the garb of this review petition which is not permissible under the scope of review. I have therefore, no hesitation in rejecting this re-view petition as devoid of force.