JUDGMENT The revision is against the order whereby the Court below has rejected the application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Respondent filed a suit for eviction against the applicant on the grounds mentioned under section 12(1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The tenant did not deposit the rent. The Court passed provisional order on 20.11.95 to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 1550/- per month with effect from 1st August, 93. One month time was granted and the case was listed on 22.12.95. The rent was not deposited; the respondents filed an application under section 13(6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, and the case was adjourned to 25.3.96. On that day, applicant did not appear and the Court proceeded ex-parte. The Court passed an order on 27.3.96 and struck out the defence and later on, on the same day that is on 27.3.96 the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was filed. The application was opposed and was rejected on 29.6.96. The applicant thereafter on 1.8.96 filed an application for review of the order dated 29.6.96. The application for review has been rejected by the impugned order. Shri Gohil, learned counsel for applicant contended that the Court below ought to have allowed the application for review. He stated that Court was not justified in rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. The applicant did not prefer any revision against the said order dated 29.6.96. Counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment of Supreme Court reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 Arjun's case to contend that the ex-parte order ought to have been set aside. The present revision is against the order whereby the application for review has been rejected; the applicant did not prefer any petition against the original order. Arjun's case as such is of no assistance. The Court below has considered the entire material in detail. The Court has further found that the order regarding striking out of the defence was passed on 27.3.96 and till that date no amount was paid. The review has been filed against the order dated 29.6.96. The order dated 27.3.96 regarding striking out of the defence has not been challenged. The Court has considered the entire material and found that no case for review has been made out. The review has been filed against the order dated 29.6.96. The order dated 27.3.96 regarding striking out of the defence has not been challenged. The Court has considered the entire material and found that no case for review has been made out. This Court has also considered the entire material afresh and is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Court below specially in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 (Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others) where the Apex Court has dealt the matter in paragraph 9 as under : "Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review interalia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and having considered facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, there is no error of jurisdiction nor any illegality has been found warranting interference of this Court, under section 115 CPC. The revision has no force. It is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.