ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. The applicants have preferred this revision against the order dated 23-2-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mungeli in M. J.C. No. 2/97 whereby the application filed under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC to review the judgment and decree dated 20-12-96 passed in Civil Suit No. 17-B/95 has been rejected. 3. The respondent Bank filed a civil suit for recovery of the loan amount from applicant No. 1-Gorelal. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 17-B/95 which was decreed on 20-12-96. Para 6 of the order impugned dated 23-2-2001 shows that during trial of the original suit the plaintiff-Bank examined Ajay Kumar Shrivastava, and para 7 shows that issues were framed. Issue No. 6 was with regard to the grant being given by the departments of the State Govt. and that has been decided against the applicants-defendants. 4. An application for 'Review' of judgment is made under Order 47; substantive Section is 114, which is quoted below:-- "114. Review.-- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code; or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes; may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit." 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the scope of review in a decision reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 (Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors.), wherein it has been held that a judgment may be open to review inter alia 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. 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". In the present case the Trial Court framed issues, took evidence and passed detailed judgment and decree. 6. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record and in view of the 'scope of review' dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi (supra), nothing has been pointed out warranting any mistake or error in the impugned order. The revision fails and is dismissed.