JUDGMENT P.K. Palli, J.:- The petitioners have moved this application seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court dated January 3, 1997. The petitioners had set up a hotel at Dalhousie and for that purpose loan was raised from the H.P. State Financial Corporation followed by an additional loan in the year 1983-84. It is being argued that the State of Punjab-was facing problem of terrorism during those years and the business was adversely affected as the visitors in order to visit Dalhousie, could not travel through the State of Punjab. 2. Re-schedulement of the loan was sought which agreed to by the Corporation laying down certain conditions on September 4, 1989. It is being argued that despite the re-scheduling and the fact that payments of installments of the loan were being paid, the loan, was re-called and possession taken over. Some deposit is said to have been made and; possession was, admittedly, restored to the petitioners, but thereafter there was a breavment in the family as brother of the petitioner was shot dead by the militants in the year 1992 and payment could not be made as stipulated. 3. Admittedly, the possession of the hotel was taken over again and thereafter the Financial Corporation moved further for the sale of the; hotel and an advertisement in this respect appeared in the newspaper "the Punjab Kesri" on January 22,1993 calling for tenders. It is being argued that me area of the hotel was not clearly mentioned and the advertisement was not in accordance with the guidelines laid down for that purpose. The petitioner was informed in respect of the highest bid amounting to Rs. 10 lac and was given a chance to make a counter-offer on or before March 24, 1993. The learned counsel is at pains to contend that this letter was received by his client on March 23, 1993 itself making the offer meaningless. 4. One buyer is said to have been produced by the petitioners who made an offer of Rs.60 lac as against final sale price of Rs. 39, 75,000/- which was offered by respondents No.3 to 5, who are the purchasers. 5. The learned counsel forcefully contends that vide order dated December 23, 1993 passed by this Court, it was observed that the respondents should have exercised vigilance in inviting people for negotiations by giving sufficient time. 39, 75,000/- which was offered by respondents No.3 to 5, who are the purchasers. 5. The learned counsel forcefully contends that vide order dated December 23, 1993 passed by this Court, it was observed that the respondents should have exercised vigilance in inviting people for negotiations by giving sufficient time. It was further stipulated that the offer be considered and decision placed before this Court. It is being pointed out that this Court while disposing of the writ petition, has not taken into consideration these facts and the property has been permitted to be sold out for an amount which is far lesser than the market value. It is also being argued that the respondent - Corporation refused to relax the conditions of re-payment while the conditions were relaxed in respect of the buyers who are respondents No.3 to 5. Refer 2ncs is also made to the deliberations held in the meeting of the officials which w 3S constituted for disposal of the assets of the taken - over unit. It is being argued that .die respondents had been callous in the discharge of their duties and the sale has resulted into arbitrary action which is not warranted by law. 6. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that all these arguments are being advanced in a manner as if it is a re-hearing of a writ petition. Vide impugned judgment the writ petition was disposed of with certain observations. It may be pointed out that during the half-hearted arguments that were advanced by the learned counsel then appearing for the petitioners, it was observed that the petitioners could not be granted any relief under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. There were disputed questions of fact. Immediately after this observation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners confined his address for the refund of the excess amount lying with the respondent -Corporation. We pointedly asked the learned counsel to inform the Court as to how much amount was exactly due on the unit was sold. None of the counsel was in a position to inform the Court in this respect 7. It was in this situation that we directed the Corporation to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and further calculate the amount due after adjustments. None of the counsel was in a position to inform the Court in this respect 7. It was in this situation that we directed the Corporation to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and further calculate the amount due after adjustments. It was also directed that the amount found surplus would be refunded back to the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 13 per annum which was the rate of interest the Corporation charged from the petitioner on the loan amount. We desire to emphasise that none of the arguments now being advanced by Mr. Matewal, learned Senior Advocate were pressed into service at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. 8. As the learned counsel had confined his relief in respect of the excess amount, it was almost a consent order that was passed by us. 9. It is too well -known that while exercising power of review, the Court has to proceed within definite limits. This power can be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or such piece of evidence which even after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner who seeks review of the judgment. 10. It must not be forgotten that the power of review, in the given situation, would be exercised when some mistake or error, apparent on the fact of the record, is pointed out. All what has been argued from the side of the petitioners is on the merits of the case. Assuming that the judgment may be erroneous on merits, the same could not be made a ground for review. That is the exclusive domain of the Court of appeal. 11. The Honble Supreme Court in a number of judgments has clearly demarcated that the power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may unable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Court. 12. We made it absolutely clear to Mr. Matewal that the counsel, then appearing in the petition, did not address any arguments on merits and felt satisfied with the order passed in the writ petition which was dictated in open Court. Once we proceed to appreciate the arguments advanced in the hearing of the review, it would virtually amount to a re-hearing of the writ petition. Matewal that the counsel, then appearing in the petition, did not address any arguments on merits and felt satisfied with the order passed in the writ petition which was dictated in open Court. Once we proceed to appreciate the arguments advanced in the hearing of the review, it would virtually amount to a re-hearing of the writ petition. A review can be entertained only subject to the well-set principles of the rules as it is something serious, unless a glaring omission or a patent mistake or grave error is pointed" out We may like to observe that the situation does not improve by the change of counsel. The error has to be of such a kind which is apparent on the record and can be noticed without any process of reasons. We are afraid, re-appraisal of the record to find an error, is not permissible in review. 13. In our considered opinion, no case has been made out for re- calling/reviewing the judgment passed-by this Court and the review petition being wholly mis-conceived, is ordered to be dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. -