ORDER 1. Having heard Dr. Pal with Mr. S. Mohapatra for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Ray with Mr. P. Mohanty for the opp. party authorities, it appears that these cases have chequered background indeed. By our comprehensive judgment delivered on 19th May, 95 OJC Nos. 4756 and 4757 of 1993 were disposed of. It transpires that during the last summer vacation Misc. Case Nos. 3313 and 3314 of 1995 Were filed. The learned Vacation Judge by order dated 30th May, 1995 directed that in the event the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 2 crores within two weeks from that date, no coercive steps would be taken till the re-opening of the Court. The matter again appeared on 9-6-1995 before the learned Vacation Judge and it was directed to be put up on 19th of June, 1995. Since review applications were filed, on 19-6-1995 the matters were taken up by this Bench. We heard the learned advocate for the petitioner in part in support of the review applications and as prayed for by him the same were adjourned for further hearing to this day for admission. Leave was however granted to file affidavit against the Misc. Cases also. The Misc. Cases were also posted to this day and it. was further ordered that any steps taken would abide by the ultimate order of this Court and no coercive step would be taken without academic zeal and enthusiasm, we could not persuade ourselves to interfere in those cases to upset the orders passed by the opp. party authorities with the consequences that there would be financial hardship to the petitioner, as argued. 2. Dr. Pal, at the outset, with his vast experience at the Bar and reputation as to his wisdom and erudition has submitted that the petitioner cannot argue the matter more forcefully as would be in appeal, but within the narrow scope of review as envisaged under the law. 2. Dr. Pal, at the outset, with his vast experience at the Bar and reputation as to his wisdom and erudition has submitted that the petitioner cannot argue the matter more forcefully as would be in appeal, but within the narrow scope of review as envisaged under the law. However, he has verily emphasised on the point that though this Court has recorded all the points of law and facts as made out by the petitioner and the revenue authorities and considered several decisions referred and appreciated the proposition of law correctly, yet on an analysis of the tacts by referring to the decision in 40 STC 367 (Board of Revenue v. Swaika Oil Mill) there has been erroneous appreciation by this Court as to the documents referred by the petitioner and by such erroneous appreciation, there is failure of justice. Unless the judgment is reviewed and heard once again on merit and/or the matter is remanded to the appropriate authorities for effecting proper adjudication in right perspective, the petitioner will suffer loss and injury. 3. The principle of review is well-known to the Bar and the Bench Unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record or there is discovery of any new facts, there is no scope of review such scope is obviously very limited indeed. Dr. Pal during his argument has also conceded that if there is any erroneous appreciation of law or fact and/or the case has been considered on both counts, the same cannot be the subject-matter of review. However, he has drawn our attention to the fact that by appreciating the documents as referred to by the petitioner in the instant case, certain errors have crept in and those may be corrected by reviewing the judgment in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Lal appearing for the revenue has drawn our attention to a decision of the apex Court reported in Babboo alias Kalyandas and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. 4. Mr. Lal appearing for the revenue has drawn our attention to a decision of the apex Court reported in Babboo alias Kalyandas and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Considering the scope of review in a writ petition and the power as to limitation vis-a-vis the principles of review as envisaged under Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC, there is observation that review by High Court of its own order in writ petition on the ground that the documents, which were part of the record were not considered by it at the time of issue of a writ under Article 226, especially when those documents were not even relied upon by the parties in the affidavits filed before the Court and on the ground several instead of one writ petition should have been filed, is impermissible. The question that more than one writ petition should have been filed is a mere question of procedure. It has further been observed that true it is that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct pave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found ; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. 5. Laying much emphasis on the last expression of the Supreme Court, in the present cases of review before us, we find there is no discovery of any new and important matter which the petitioner, after due diligence, could not place before the Court nor is there-anything which this Court has missed for which errors appear on the face of the record. This Court has admittedly referred in depth and details the facts of the petitioners and the revenue authorities. This Court has admittedly referred in depth and details the facts of the petitioners and the revenue authorities. This Court has also discussed all the points of law and facts on merit and appreciated all the submissions made by the respective parties. We cannot be asked to sit in appeal over our own judgment. If this Court has committed anything wrong, it is certainly open to the aggrieved party to ventilate its grievance in the higher forum But with great respect to the learned lawyers supporting the present review applications, we are afraid, we do not find anything wrong in our judgment which can be rectified within the scope of review as per the principles discussed above. Considering all these aspects we are unable to entertain the review applications and dismiss the same. There will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed