JUDGMENT The following order of the Court was delivered by R.D. Vyas, J: This is a review application filed by the revisional applicant, who wants a review of the judgment by learned Single Judge of this Court (K.M. Pande, J) in Civil Revision application No. 177/91 passed on 26.8.91. The contention on behalf of the applicant in this review application is that this Court has not considered the case on merits but the same has been disposed of only holding that disallowing the application for amendment does not amount to" a case decided". For the purpose of supporting the contention that the decision on the application for amendment would amount to the case decided, reliance was placed on Gulab Chand v. Bachulal (1975 MPLJ SN 139). It is also contended that at the time of deciding whether to grant amendment application, the Court was not required to look into the merits of the case as held in Smt. Uma Gupta v. Smt. Sushila & Ano. ( AIR 1989 MP 169 ) as also S. Kumar v. The Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies & Ors. ( AIR 1984 SC 59 ). The learned counsel for the non-applicant contended that review application does not lie as even if the judgment of this Court (Single Judge) was erroneous in interpreting the law, the review application would not lie. Reliance was placed on the decision in M/s Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1964 SC 1372 ). It was also contended on behalf of the non-applicant that even if there is a mistake of law, the case cannot be looked into in a review application. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge while he disposed of the case had considered the merits of the revision application and in doing so the learned Single Judge had taken into consideration the reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge and had agreed with the same. It was also contended that the learned Single Judge while he disposed of the case had considered the merits of the revision application and in doing so the learned Single Judge had taken into consideration the reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge and had agreed with the same. Reading the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court, which is the subject-matter of this review application, it has to be seen that the Judge hearing the application had taken into consideration that the amendment application dated 4.2.91 has been allowed by the learned Judge with respect of certain portion and rest of the amendment sought to be introduced by the application dated 5.11.1990 has been rejected on the ground that the same will change the nature of the case and that the same includes the claims regarding the items which have become time barred at the time of the amendment. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Court at the time of passing of the order on the revision application had committed any error apparent on the face of the record. We feel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for review of the judgment of this Court. There is no merit in the application and the same is rejected. Parties to bear their own costs.