Judgment SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) MISC. Appeal preferred by the petitioner appellant against the order dated April 21, 1994 of the District judge, Alwar was dismissed by this Court (Honble R. S. Kejriwal, J.) on February 11, 1997. It is against this order that the petitioner appellant has filed instant review petition. ( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. ( 3 ) IT was canvassed by Mr. R. K. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that while passing the order dated February 11, 1997 this court committed mistake, an error apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation as no such objection was raised by the decree holder respondent before the lower executing Court and there was no occasion to meet such objection in the Court below. Even no such objection was raised before this court in writing but at the time or arguments it was raised orally. The objection in respect of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which requires proper investigation on the basis of evidence. This court did not enter into merits of the case but dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation only. ( 4 ) UNDENIABLY the order dated February 11, 1997 was passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner also addressed this Court in respect of preliminary objection and his arguments were incorporated in the order : "on the other hand, counsel for the appellant submits that he filed objection petition under Order 21, Rule 58, c. P. C. within time but the application was dismissed in default and under these circumstances he filed the second application. The application cannbt be rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Admittedly, the property was attached on 21. 10 1985 and objection petition under Order 21, Rule 58 has been filed on 3. 11. 1990 after a long delay Consequently, the same is dismissed, not on ground that the second application is not maintainable but on the ground that it has been filed after a long delay. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. 10 1985 and objection petition under Order 21, Rule 58 has been filed on 3. 11. 1990 after a long delay Consequently, the same is dismissed, not on ground that the second application is not maintainable but on the ground that it has been filed after a long delay. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. " ( 5 ) A dose scrutiny of the order dated April 21, 1994 of the learned District Judge Alwar demonstrates that delay of two years in filing the objection petition was discussed and considered Therefore it is not correct to say that arguments in respect of delay was raised for the first time in appeal In Persian Devi and ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus"under Order 47, Rule 1, C. P C. a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or 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, C P. C. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, cpc it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected. " There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record while the first can be corrected by the higher Forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise. " ( 6 ) I do not see any error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated February, 11, 1997 passed by this Court. It may be an erroneous decision in the eye of the petitioner but the petitioner is free to choose a higher forum if he is advised so and for this purpose the provisions under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC cannot be resorted. ( 7 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.