JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This review petition has been filed against the judgment dated 22.9.1982 by the Board in revision/reference arising out of restoration matter relating to a suit under section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. in this case, an ex parte decree had been passed on 9.5.1975 which would be upheld if restoration application stood rejected as in the order dated 22.9.1982 and the learned counsel argued that there was no evidence to support the ex parte decree and so it would be without jurisdiction. He further argued that the learned trial court had not given any judgment and so in the event of rejection of the restoration application, it would be a decree without judgment. He argued that this constituted an error apparent on the face of the record and further argued that since the papers relating to substitution application were under sealed cover, no arguments could be advanced on the date of final-hearing of the restoration application. 4. Tho learned counsel for the opposite party argued that a review petition could not be made to re-agitate the matter and cited in support a ruling reported in 1971 R.D. 256. He further argued that the guidelines as to what constituted an error apparent on the face of the record are the same as in Order XLI Rule 1 C.P.C. and, in support, cited a ruling reported in 1977 A.W.C. 177. He argued that a further perusal of evidence and reconsideration of the same resulting in a different conclusion would not amount to existence of error apparent and, in support, cited rulings reported in A.I.R. 1969 M.P. 217 and A.I.R. 1959 Bombay 466. He also argued that a writ petition had been filed by the applicants and there was really no need to decide this review petition. The learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the revision had not been decided according to evidence and record and that since the Board had not given any finding about service of summons there was no occasion to reject the restoration application. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the revision had not been decided according to evidence and record and that since the Board had not given any finding about service of summons there was no occasion to reject the restoration application. 5. There is no dispute about the scope of the review petition and I agree that such application should not be made a lever to re-agitate a matter already decided it is only glaring errors apparent from the judgment or record which can be the subject matter of review. No such error has been pointed out. Even if some conclusion may be shown to be an erroneous decision after reconsideration of evidence and circumstances, it could not be an error apparent on the face of the record. In fact, the scope of review includes such errors which are more or less unintentional, the court according to its line of thinking intended something different than what got concluded and such conclusions can certainly be taken to be errors within the scope of this application. But I do not find any such error present. The judgment in question shows a detailed consideration and definite conclusions arrived at which are the result of due consideration and not unintended errors. I am, therefore, unable to agree that the rejection of the restoration application can be considered as error apparent on the face of the record and so this review petition is found to be without force and is hereby rejected.