Honble VERMA, J.–In a suit for specific performance between the parties wherein interim injunction was also sought restraining the defendant respondent for alienating the property, the interim injunction had been granted by the trial court, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 150/95 was filed by the defendant before this court which was decided on 1.5.1997 by the Honble Justice Kejriwal (now retired). The appellate court after hearing the parties had modified the order of interim injunction to the effect that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive rent from the respondent 2 to 6 pending the suit and the defendants tenants were directed to make the payment of the rent to the defendant appellant Mohanlal. It was further ordered that in case the plaintiff appellant wanted to sell the disputed property, he had to mention in the sale-deed itself that a civil suit is pending in the court of Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, for specific performance of the disputed property so that the transferee be impleaded in the suit in future in case the suit is decreed. (2). Following order was passed: Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I direct that in case the plaintiff-appellant wants to sell the disputed property, he has to mention in the sale-deed that the Civil Suit No. 563/1992, is pending in the Court of A.D.J. No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, for specific performance of the disputed property, so that the transferee may, if so desire, be impleaded in the suit, and in future, in case the suit is decreed, he may not taken a plea that he was not aware of the pendency of the suit and purchased the property in good faith. (3). The petitioner has moved the present application for review of the above said order. So far as payment of rent is concerned, the counsel is not pressing the review on that aspect. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it and also the mistake is apparent on the face of record and, therefore, a review is required to be ordered with further submission that it is not possible for the petitioner to keep a watch as to when the other parties shall sell the properties. I might have agreed with him on the point that in a suit for specific performance for registration of the property basing on a sale-deed, the appellate court either could have granted the injunction as prayed for or rejected the same in toto. The bare reading of the order mentioned above clearly shows that so far as the order of the interim injunction of alienating the property is concerned, that implidely stands set aside by the order of Justice Kejriwal. (4). The question which arises in the present case is that whether a review application is maintainable if such like an order is passed as reproduced above. To my opinion, no review is maintainable. The order can be highly erroneous illegal or wrong. But that is not the scope of the review petition. It had been so held by the Honble Supreme Court in Sow Chandra Kanta & Anr. vs. Sheik Habib (1), Sunil Kumar Jain vs. Kishan & Ors. (2), Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. (3) and Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (4). (5). In Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (supra) it was held that the review court cannot act as an appellate court and error on the face of record means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. In Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. (supra) it was held that the judgment may be open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error on the face of the record. When error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, an erroneous decision is not permissible to be reheard and corrected and the review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be used as an appeal in disguise. (6). So is the law laid down in Sow Chandra Kanta & Anr. vs. Sheik Habib (supra). (7). In view of the settled law, I do not find the order of the Honble Justice Kejriwal to be either beyond the record or without jurisdiction and does not fall on any of the ground permissible for making the review application. (8). The review application is, therefore, dismissed. There is no order as to costs.