H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a review application under Order 47, Rule 1 from the order dated 6-4-1993 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty dismissing the applicant's civil revision. ( 2 ) THIS review application has been filed on the ground that this Hon'ble Court ought to have seen that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was not maintainable as the Small Causes court has no jurisdiction to maintain the said suit. The said suit should have been entertained as a mere case under the category of suits excepted from the cognisance of Court of Small Causes as per Section 8 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts (Amendment) Act, 1976, and also as per the entry at Sl. No. 1 of the Schedule of the said Act which has been quoted as:"a suit concerning in act done or purporting to be done by or by order of the Central Government or the State Government". It has nowhere been stated even in the review application that was the ground taken before the learned Judge while revision petition was pending. It has also not been shown by presenting a copy of the plaint that in the suit concerned, the act done or purported to have been done by the Central Government or the state Government. Even if a plea would have been taken that the learned Judge has taken a view that there was a jurisdictional error and dismissed the revision and if according to the State Government, the Hon'ble Judge while dismissing the revision committed an error then the proper course for the government is to file an appeal before the Supreme Court. Simple error if any, is no ground for review. It is only the error apparent on the record may be the ground for review. The applicants could have at least presented a copy of the plaint to show that the suit was of the nature which the present applicants assert. Error apparent on record had been defined in the leading case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v government of Andhra Pradesh, dealing with the scope of review. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Thungabhadra industries case, supra, vide Para 11 of the Judgment, observed:"a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Thungabhadra industries case, supra, vide Para 11 of the Judgment, observed:"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" ( 3 ) THE same view has well been expressed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala kumari Choudhury. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Meera Bhanja's case, supra, as under:"it is well-settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure code". Their Lordships further observed in Paragraph 8 itself as under:"now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions". I may mention here that their Lordships have also made their reference to an earlier decision of the Court in the case of satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v Mallikarjun Bhavanappa tirumale. ( 4 ) THUS being clear about the scope of the review and the basic yardsticks of principles and conditions in which a review petition may be entertained. I may mention here that their Lordships have also made their reference to an earlier decision of the Court in the case of satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v Mallikarjun Bhavanappa tirumale. ( 4 ) THUS being clear about the scope of the review and the basic yardsticks of principles and conditions in which a review petition may be entertained. When I test the applicants' review application, I find that it must fail for the reason, firstly, that the applicants have not placed any material including the copy of the plaint on the basis of which it could be said or considered if the ground urged had some substance. It was the duty of the state to have provided such documents to the learned government Pleader for production before the Court and for their failure, the State has to bear it. No blame is to be put on the learned Government Pleader. It is the duty of the government to provide relevant documents. In the present case, copy of the plaint had not been presented for being placed before the Court. Apart from that, if this would have been a case for the construction of a plaint to determine whether the suit concerned any action of the Government, Central or State this would have been a case only of taking a different opinion or forming different opinion from the one that has been taken by the Hon'ble Single judge while dismissing the petition if that point would have been raised. If that point had not been raised, it cannot be said that the Hon'ble Judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record. It is expected that in future complete sets of documents be supplied to the learned Government Pleader to enable him to present them before the Court. With these observations, the review application is hereby dismissed as misconceived. Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Law Secretary so that he may consider the matter and issue suitable direction to the officers of the district concerned. --- *** --- .